No Joint Return, No Innocent Spouse Relief

On September 28, 2026, the U.S. Tax Court issued a short but instructive memorandum opinion in Daidone v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-98. The taxpayer, Joanne Daidone, asked the Court to review the IRS's denial of her request for innocent spouse relief. She lost. Yet everyone involved — the taxpayer, the IRS, and even her ex-husband — agreed that she did not owe the tax at issue.

How can a taxpayer "lose" an innocent spouse case and still walk away owing nothing? The answer is simple: innocent spouse relief exists only for people who filed a joint return. Ms. Daidone never did.

The Facts

Joanne and Stephen Daidone married in 1980 and divorced in January 2023. While the divorce was pending, her tax professional advised her to file her returns separately, using married filing separately status.

Mr. Daidone's divorce attorney then asked whether she would file a joint Form 1040 for 2014. Her attorney said no — she would not sign or file a joint return. Mr. Daidone filed a joint 2014 return anyway. Instead of her signature, he put his own initials on her signature line. Ms. Daidone later filed her own separate 2014 return in July 2025.

In June 2023, Ms. Daidone filed Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief, stating that she had no involvement with the joint return and did not sign it. The IRS denied relief, issuing a final determination letter in August 2024 that denied equitable relief under section 6015(f). She then petitioned the Tax Court.

The Proceedings

Ms. Daidone moved for summary judgment, arguing that she was not liable for any tax on the 2014 return because she neither signed it nor tacitly consented to its filing. The IRS agreed. Mr. Daidone, who intervened in the case, opposed the motion. He argued that she knew he was filing a joint return and that whether she tacitly consented was a factual question requiring a trial.

The Court then ordered Ms. Daidone to show cause why the case should not be dismissed because no valid joint return had been filed. In her response, she conceded that section 6015 relief is unavailable without a valid joint return.

The Court's Analysis

Was There a Valid Joint Return?

Spouses who file a joint return are generally jointly and severally liable for the entire tax for that year. However, a missing signature does not by itself defeat a joint return. Under the "tacit consent" rule, a spouse's intent to file jointly may be inferred from acquiescence or tacit approval. Relevant factors include whether the nonsigning spouse filed a separate return, whether that spouse objected to a joint filing, and whether prior filing history shows an intent to file jointly.

Here, every factor pointed one way. Ms. Daidone explicitly refused to file jointly and filed her own separate return. Mr. Daidone's own court filing hurt his position: he admitted that he "placed his initials on the spouse line to reflect on her refusal" and that she "refused to sign." Based on those admissions, the Court held that there was no genuine factual dispute. Ms. Daidone did not tacitly consent, and no valid joint return was filed for 2014.

Why Relief Was Still Denied

That conclusion decided the case — against the person who won the argument. Section 6015 offers three types of relief from joint and several liability: traditional innocent spouse relief under section 6015(b), allocation of liability under section 6015(c), and equitable relief under section 6015(f). Each depends on a joint return. In a "stand-alone" case — one that seeks only review of a section 6015 denial — the Court's jurisdiction is limited to deciding whether section 6015 relief is available.

The Court explained that a joint return is a condition for relief, but not for the Court's review of a denial. Because no joint return existed, there was nothing the Court could grant under section 6015. And the Court has no equitable power to expand its jurisdiction "no matter how unfair the circumstances may seem." Quoting an earlier case, the Court noted that, "[g]iven the narrow scope of our section 6015 jurisdiction, this conclusion ends the case."

Using Tax Court Rule 121(g), which allows summary judgment for a nonmoving party after notice and an opportunity to respond, the Court denied Ms. Daidone's motion and affirmed the IRS's denial of relief. The Court also recorded the IRS's agreement that the joint return was invalid and that she is not liable for the tax reported on it.

Practical Takeaways

1. A forged or unauthorized signature is not an innocent spouse issue. Innocent spouse relief protects people from a joint liability they actually took on. If a spouse never agreed to file jointly, the real argument is that no joint liability ever existed. The IRS's own instructions to Form 8857 say this: if a signature was forged, there is no valid joint return, and the taxpayer "will be removed from the account and . . . no longer be liable for any taxes owed for that return."

2. Document the refusal. A name signed on a return is presumed to have been signed by that person. Ms. Daidone's case was easy because the refusal was documented through attorney communications, her separate return, and her ex-husband's admissions. Taxpayers in contested divorces should keep a written record of any refusal to file jointly and, when appropriate, file their own separate return.

3. Tacit consent is a real risk. The facts that won this case — an express objection and a separate filing — are often missing. A spouse who stays silent, provides tax documents, or has a long history of filing jointly may be found to have consented to a joint return even without signing it. In that case, section 6015 becomes the main defense.

4. Choose the right path. If the issue is that no joint return was filed, the most direct solution is usually to ask the IRS to remove the nonsigning spouse from the joint account. Filing Form 8857 is still useful because it raises the issue, but taxpayers and their advisors should frame the request correctly from the start. In Daidone, the issue appeared in the original Form 8857, yet the dispute still went to Tax Court.

5. Close the loop after the decision. Although the Court affirmed the denial, the IRS's agreement that Ms. Daidone is not liable is an important part of the record. Taxpayers in her position should confirm that their IRS account transcripts actually reflect the correction and that collection activity on the invalid joint return has stopped.

Conclusion

Daidone shows that a winning argument can produce a formal loss. Section 6015 relief is unavailable when a spouse did not file jointly. Even so, the absence of a joint return, if clearly proven, can protect that spouse more completely than innocent spouse relief. For practitioners, the first question in any innocent spouse matter should be: was there actually a valid joint return?

This post is for general information only and is not legal or tax advice. Readers should consult a qualified tax professional about their own circumstances.

Have an IRS Tax Problem?

     Contact the Tax Lawyers at

Marini & Associates, P.A. 

for a FREE Tax HELP Contact us at:
www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com
or Toll Free at 888 8TAXAID (888-882-9243)

 

Sources

• Daidone v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-98 (Sept. 28, 2026) (Guider, J.), Docket No. 17172-24, available through the U.S. Tax Court's DAWSON docket system and Thomson Reuters Checkpoint.
• I.R.C. § 6013(d)(3); Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 282 (2000), cited in Daidone, T.C. Memo. 2026-98, at *4.
• Daidone, T.C. Memo. 2026-98, at *4 (citing Hennen v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 747, 748 (1961); Okorogu v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2017-53, at *19–21; Heim v. Commissioner, 27 T.C. 270, 274 (1956), aff'd, 251 F.2d 44 (8th Cir. 1958); Howell v. Commissioner, 10 T.C. 859, 866 (1948), aff'd per curiam, 175 F.2d 240 (6th Cir. 1949); Carroro v. Commissioner, 29 B.T.A. 646, 650 (1933)).
• I.R.C. § 6015(a), (b), (c), (f); Daidone, T.C. Memo. 2026-98, at *4.
• IRS, Instructions for Form 8857 (line 11).
• I.R.C. § 6064; IRS, Instructions for Form 8857 (line 11).