William C. and Elaine Gaskins - Page 42

                                                 - 42 -                                                    
            Flynn v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. at 367. Normal support is                                       
            determined by the circumstances of the parties. Sanders v.                                     
            United States, 509 F.2d 162, 168 (5th Cir. 1975); Estate of                                    
            Krock v. Commissioner, supra at 678-679; Flynn v. Commissioner,                                
            supra at 367.                                                                                  
                  Furthermore, while a meager lifestyle may negate a reason                                
            to know or that a spouse significantly benefited, the Court of                                 
            Appeals for the Third Circuit87 has indicated that such a                                      
            lifestyle need not lead to the conclusion that it is inequitable                               
            to hold the spouse liable for the tax, particularly where assets                               
            have accumulated for the spouse's later use. Purificato v.                                     
            Commissioner, 9 F.3d at 296.                                                                   
                  From a financial standpoint, the Gaskins have lived a bleak                              
            existence. They have had a history of borrowing to pay for                                     
            consumer items and being delinquent on their debts. Other than                                 
            their house and old automobiles, the Gaskins have no assets.                                   
                  Respondent cites Sonnenborn v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 373                                 
            (1971) and Terzian v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 1164 (1979), for the                               
            proposition that Mrs. Gaskins has not met her burden of showing                                
            she did not benefit, since she has not accounted for the use of                                
            the diverted income. In Sonnenborn v. Commissioner, Mrs.                                       
            Sonnenborn, the treasurer of the corporation from which the                                    
            omitted income derived, knew of the payments from the                                          


                  8An appeal in this case would lie to the Court of Appeals                                
            for the Third Circuit.                                                                         




Page:  Previous  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011