- 13 -
1985. In addition, net operating loss deductions were carried
back to 1981 and 1982.
Although petitioner and Philip entered into their marriage
on a similar footing as to assets, Philip had a substantial
earning capacity and, from the beginning, was able to provide a
high standard of living for himself, petitioner, and petitioner's
daughters. Throughout the period under consideration,
petitioners lived in high-quality residences. However, the
important factor here is that their standard of living did not
increase, either during or after the years that the grossly
erroneous deductions drastically reduced their tax liability.
Ultimately, in the separation agreement, petitioner received a
partnership interest that provided her with about $4,300 per
month, the right to the Fire Island property, a moderately priced
1986 automobile, and claim to her joint share of any equity in
the condo. The $4,300 amount appears to approximate the monthly
living expenditures attributable to petitioner. At the time of
the separation agreement, the condo was substantially mortgaged,
the Fire Island property had a relatively large mortgage, and the
automobile was about 4 years old. The bulk of the assets
received in accordance with the separation agreement was
purchased for cash prior to the deduction of the "grossly
erroneous items" in question. Other than a fur coat, petitioner
did not receive lavish assets or jewelry during the marriage.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011