- 43 -
corporation to the taxpayers. She failed to prove that she did
not know, or have reason to know, such payments were income,
rather than the loans the taxpayers alleged them to be. Since
Mrs. Sonnenborn did not provide any information as to the use of
these payments, this Court would not speculate and held that she
did not establish that she did not benefit. In Terzian v.
Commissioner, the taxpayer did not know the source of funds in a
bank account transferred to her. This Court, therefore, assumed
the account contained funds from the omitted income. However,
since the amount was considered to be for the taxpayer's
ordinary support, this Court found she did not significantly
benefit.
Mrs. Gaskins had no knowledge of any unreported payments to
her husband, nor did she receive any unexplained benefits or
assets. It is impossible for her to explain something she did
not know about. Her burden is to show she did not benefit. It is
clear from the record that Mrs. Gaskins received no benefit from
the omitted income.
Another factor to consider is whether the spouse seeking
relief had been deserted by, or divorced or separated from the
culpable spouse. Sec. 1.6013-5(b), Income Tax Regs. Yet, this is
only one of the factors to be considered, and section 6013(e)
relief is not limited to spouses whose marriages have ended.
Mysse v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. at 700. Mrs. Gaskins continues to
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011