Carl Dimichele and Eileen Dimichele - Page 36

             Mrs. DiMichele.  Of the bank accounts owned jointly by                   
             petitioners, the Delaware Cash Reserve Account #8-943701-2               
             was ordered to be forfeited.  The property at 1433 W.                    
             Passyunk Avenue was ordered forfeited as well as the                     
             DiMicheles' interest in the 1441 Shunk Street property.                  
             The remaining joint and individually held accounts of                    
             petitioner were retained by petitioner.  All cash found at               
             petitioners' residence and in the safe deposit boxes was                 
             forfeited.  The Cadillac apparently remained in                          
             petitioner's possession.  [Ex.20]  All other jointly and                 
             individually held property not ordered forfeited remained                
             in petitioner's possession.                                              
                  Under section 6013(e)(1)(D), petitioner must prove                  
             that, taking into account all of the facts and                           
             circumstances of the case, it would be inequitable to hold               
             her liable for the tax deficiency attributable to her                    
             spouse.  Sec. 16.6013-5(b), Income Tax Regs.  Factors to be              
             considered are:  (i) Whether the spouse claiming relief                  
             significantly benefitted from the grossly erroneous items                
             attributable to the culpable spouse, Estate of Krock v.                  
             Commissioner, 93 T.C. 672, 677 (1989); and (ii) whether the              
             spouse claiming relief has been deserted by or divorced or               
             separated from the culpable spouse.  Id. at 678; section                 
             1.6013-5(b), Income Tax Regs.                                            
                  In determining whether a putative innocent spouse                   
             significantly benefitted from the grossly erroneous items                
             attributable to the culpable spouse, we look to whether the              
             spouse claiming relief significantly benefitted beyond                   
             normal support, either directly or indirectly, from the                  
             erroneous items.  Belk v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 434, 440                 
             (1989); Parcel v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 228, 242 (1986),                 
             affd. 826 F.2d 470 (6th Cir. 1987); section 1.6013-5(b),                 
             Income Tax Regs.                                                         
                  The regulations further state that:                                 
                  Evidence of direct or indirect benefit may                          
                  consist of transfers of property, including                         
                  transfers which may be received several years                       
                  after the year in which the omitted item of                         










Page:  Previous  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011