to help her gain access to the records. Nothing in the record
indicates that Mr. Woodward would have objected to making the
records more easily available to petitioner.
(iii) Unusual or lavish expenditures in comparison to
the standard of living in prior years
We accept petitioner's testimony that she and Mr. Woodward
did not live extravagantly nor did their standard of living vary
dramatically over the course of their marriage. We take note,
however, that their standard of living from 1983 forward was
financed, at least in part, by their Federal income tax refunds
from 1980 and 1981.
(iv) The culpable spouse's evasiveness concerning the
family's finances
Although the record shows that Mr. Woodward did not tell
petitioner specifically about the tax shelter investment, he did
not conceal the facts about the business transaction. The
following exchange between petitioners' attorney and petitioner
illustrates the nature of the financial relationship between
petitioner and Mr. Woodward:
Q: * * * With respect to the investments that were made, I
think you've testified that your husband was really
responsible for those matters. Did your husband ever
ask your permission with respect to making investments?
A: No.
Q: Did he ever seek your advice or your approval in making
investments?
A: No. Mostly I didn't understand any financial deals or
whatever you call it.
Q: And the reason -- you may have just answered -- the
reason that he did not ask you for your advice or
necessarily tell you what he was doing was what?
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011