- 44 -
be married to Mr. Gaskins, a fact which neither helps nor
hinders her case.
A third factor is whether probable future hardships would
be visited upon the innocent spouse if she is not relieved of
liability. Sanders v. United States, 509 F.2d at 171 n. 16. Mrs.
Gaskins has argued that the hardships the family has suffered
due to Mr. Gaskins' disability and the previous lack of medical
coverage make it inequitable to hold her liable for the
deficiency. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has
stated that hardships which do not affect tax liability do not
bear a relationship to the innocent spouse issue. Purificato v.
Commissioner, 9 F.3d at 297. Instead, we must consider the
hardship to the spouse seeking relief if made to share the tax
liability and whether that spouse would have to pay the tax out
of her own assets. Id. at 296-297. If Mrs. Gaskins were made to
share Mr. Gaskins' tax liability, her only asset, their house,
would be used to help satisfy the tax. That house was acquired
long before the years involved in this case. Also the funds to
avert the threatened foreclosure on the mortgages on that house
came from Mr. Gaskins' disability payments under Worker's
Compensation and Social Security, not from any unreported income
from West Pine. Since Mrs. Gaskins has derived no benefit or
assets from Mr. Gaskins' omitted income, it would be inequitable
for Mrs. Gaskins to be required to pay the tax.
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