# Bokum v. Commissioner

> United States Tax Court · February 28, 1990 · 94 T.C. 126

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4486386

## Case

- **Full name:** Richard D. Bokum II and Margaret B. Bokum v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
- **Court:** United States Tax Court
- **Decided:** February 28, 1990
- **Citations:** 94 T.C. 126; 94 T.C. No. 11; 1990 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 6
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Parr
- **Judges:** Chabot,Nims,Shields,Hamblen,Cohen,Clapp,Swift,Jacobs,Wright,Parr,Gerber,Ruwe,Swift,Hamblen,Jacobs,Parr,Hamblen,Korner,Williams,Wells,Whalen,Colvin,Williams,Korner,Whalen
- **Cited by:** 207 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4486386

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that knowledge of underlying transaction is all that is required both in omission and deduction cases
- declining to follow the Ninth Circuit's knowledge standard in erroneous deduction cases "except in those instances where appeal lies to that Court of Appeals”
- finding grossly erroneous items where there was no basis in law for the deductions

## Opinion text

PARR, J., concurring: I agree with the result reached in the majority’s opinion, but I am concerned that we are unnecessarily creating a decisional conflict with the Ninth Circuit through our interpretation of section 6013(e)(1)(C). I would simply hold that Margaret Bokum has failed to meet her burden of proving that it would be inequitable to hold her liable for the deficiency in tax. See sec. 6013(e)(1)(D). This holding would render the majority's expansive discussion with respect to the interpretation of section 6013(e)(1)(C) superfluous.
HAMBLEN, J., agrees with this concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4486386. Public record. Not legal advice.