- 25 -
separation agreement). Consequently, this presumption is not
applicable in this case because the transfer of assets from
Mr. Ohrman to petitioner took place pursuant to a written
separation agreement.
Respondent argues that the burden of proof under section
6015(c)(4) is on petitioner because of the language of section
6015(c)(2) and caselaw interpreting section 6015(c). Conversely,
petitioner contends that respondent has the burden of proof
because of the language of section 1.6015-3(c)(3)(iii), Income
Tax Regs., and the legislative history of section 6015(c). We
need not resolve this dispute, however, because the preponderance
of the evidence establishes that the principal purpose of the
transfer was the avoidance of tax.
Respondent contends that the facts of this case show that
petitioner and Mr. Ohrman intentionally and purposely obtained a
legal separation and transferred assets in an attempt to shield
these assets from respondent’s effort to collect the 1999 tax
deficiency. Petitioner primarily argues that, because the
transfer of assets from Mr. Ohrman to petitioner took place
pursuant to the equitable distribution rules of Oregon family
law, the transfer did not have as its principal purpose the
avoidance of tax or payment of tax. For the reasons set forth
below, respondent’s argument is persuasive on this matter.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011