- 67 -
years in issue. She remained married to petitioner during the
years in issue. We believe that Ruth Levitt fully shared in
the benefits and the tax savings from the omitted income and
that the understatements enabled her to maintain a standard of
living that she would not have enjoyed otherwise. See
Scarafile v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-512. Ruth Levitt
benefited significantly from the omitted income.
Petitioners rely on Kistner v. Commissioner, 18 F.3d 1521
(11th Cir. 1994) revg. and remanding T.C. Memo 1991-463, and
Flynn v. Commissioner, supra, for the proposition that a
spouse does not significantly benefit for purposes of section
6013(e)(1)(D) if the level of support received during the
years in issue was no different than before those years.
However, even with no change in the standard of living, the
spouse may fail to meet the requirement of section
6013(e)(1)(D). In Flynn, we found that the spouse did not
benefit from the understatements. Flynn v. Commissioner,
supra at 367-368.
Petitioners have not shown that it would be inequitable to
hold Ruth Levitt liable for the deficiency. Consequently, we
hold that she is not entitled to relief as an innocent spouse
under section 6013(e).
Page: Previous 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011