Death, Taxes, and Social Security: Why a Widow Was Denied Innocent Spouse Relief

By: Amanda Dorio, Esq.

The age-old maxim that nothing is certain except death and taxes took on new meaning in a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On August 1, 2025, the court affirmed that a Florida widow, Fannie Wright, could not escape tax liability through “innocent spouse” relief, even though her husband filed joint returns without her knowledge. The reason? The tax debt stemmed from her own income.

This case, Wright v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, reinforces the limited scope of innocent spouse relief and offers an important reminder to anyone relying on others to handle their taxes.

Joint Returns and Unreported Income

Fannie Wright and her husband, Willie Wright, filed joint federal tax returns for the years 2013 through 2015. However, Ms. Wright later argued she never consented to file jointly, particularly for the 2013 and 2014 returns.

After a 2012 injury ended her career as a licensed practical nurse, Wright began receiving Social Security income. She claimed both her attorney and tax preparer told her she no longer needed to file tax returns. Nonetheless, the couple resumed filing jointly and omitted her Social Security income, which totaled roughly $18,881 in 2013 and $17,723 in 2014.

The IRS flagged the omission, added the income to the returns and assessed deficiencies. Wright sought innocent spouse relief under Internal Revenue Code §6015, but the IRS and Tax Court both denied her request.

Why the Court Denied Innocent Spouse Relief

The Eleventh Circuit sided with the IRS and Tax Court, finding that innocent spouse relief does not apply when the tax liability is based on the requesting spouse’s own income. The court explained:

“Section 6015 is designed to relieve a married joint filer of tax liabilities attributable to her spouse’s income, not those attributable to her own income.”

Even assuming the joint returns were invalid (something Wright argued based on her alleged lack of consent), the court held it didn’t matter. The Opinion stated:

“Whether valid joint returns were filed for the years at issue does not affect Ms. Wright’s obligation to pay taxes on her own income. Her liability for a tax on Social Security income is imposed by Congress.”

In other words, Wright’s personal income triggered the tax debt. Since innocent spouse relief is meant to protect someone from their spouse’s tax errors or omissions, not their own, the court found no basis for granting relief.

A Constitutional Challenge Avoided

Wright also asked the court to strike down IRC §7443(f), which protects U.S. Tax Court judges from being removed by the president without cause. She claimed this job protection violated the separation of powers under the Constitution.

But the panel declined to weigh in. Citing the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, the court said Wright failed to show any harm tied to the removal provision.

“Even if we assume that Section 7443(f) is unconstitutional, [Wright] has not shown that she would be entitled to any relief on this basis,” the opinion stated, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Collins v. Yellen.

Key Takeaways for Taxpayers

The Wright case underscores several important considerations for taxpayers, particularly those who rely on others to handle tax matters.

First, Social Security income can be taxable depending on your overall income and filing status. In Wright’s case, her benefits exceeded the threshold for taxation and omitting them led directly to the IRS deficiency.

Second, even if someone else files your return—such as a spouse or preparer—you remain personally responsible for taxes owed on your own income. Innocent spouse relief does not apply when the tax liability is tied to income you earned or received. The relief is narrowly designed to protect individuals from the mistakes or misconduct of their spouse, not from their own reporting obligations.

Additionally, this case serves as a reminder that verbal advice from well-meaning professionals may not be enough. Always seek written guidance from a licensed tax professional when you are unsure about your filing obligations.

Finally, although Wright raised a constitutional argument challenging judicial removal protections, the court declined to rule on it because she could not demonstrate any resulting harm. This reinforces that constitutional challenges must be grounded in a direct and demonstrable impact on the case outcome to be considered by the court.