- 28 -
respect to the 1978, 1979, 1980, and 1981 returns; and (2) that it is
not inequitable to hold her liable. We need not decide whether Mrs.
Walker knew or had reason to know of the understatements because we
conclude that it is not inequitable to hold her liable for the
deficiencies.
In deciding whether it is inequitable to hold a spouse liable for
a deficiency, we consider whether the purported innocent spouse
significantly benefited beyond normal support, either directly or
indirectly, from the items omitted from gross income. Purificato v.
Commissioner, 9 F.3d at 296; Hayman v. Commissioner, 992 F.2d 1256,
1262 (2d Cir. 1993), affg. T.C. Memo. 1992-228; Belk v. Commissioner,
93 T.C. 434, 440 (1989); Purcell v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 228, 242
(1986), affd. 826 F.2d 470 (6th Cir. 1987); sec. 1.6013-5(b), Income
Tax Regs. Normal support is determined in the context of the
circumstances of the particular couple involved. Sanders v. United
States, 509 F.2d 162, 168 (5th Cir. 1975); Flynn v. Commissioner, 93
T.C. 355, 367 (1989).
Mrs. Walker argues that she did not significantly benefit from
the unreported income, because, if she benefited at all, the benefit
was not beyond normal support. She points out that she and her family
already lived very well during preceding years, and claims that their
lifestyle during the years in issue did not materially improve and
remained essentially the same. However, even with no change in the
standard of living, the spouse may fail to meet the requirement of
section 6013(e)(1)(D).
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011