- 25 -
Buchine v. Commissioner, 20 F.3d 173, 181 (5th Cir. 1994), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1992-36; sec. 1.6013-5(b), Income Tax Regs. Normal
support, which is to be measured by a couple’s circumstances, is
not considered a significant benefit. Sanders v. United States,
supra at 168; Terzian v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. at 1172; Mysse v.
Commissioner, 57 T.C. at 699. A significant benefit exists if
expenditures have been made which are unusual for the taxpayer’s
accustomed lifestyle. Terzian v. Commissioner, supra. Other
factors include: (1) Whether the spouse seeking relief has been
deserted by the other spouse or is divorced or separated from
that spouse, sec. 1.6013-5(b), Income Tax Regs.; and (2) probable
future hardships that would be visited upon the purportedly
innocent spouse were he or she not relieved from liability,
Sanders v. United States, supra at 171 n.16.
We conclude, based on the record in the instant case, that
petitioner received a significant benefit from the funds that Ms.
Dawson embezzled in 1988. The embezzled funds allowed more funds
to be available for petitioner’s household than were provided by
the wage income that was earned by petitioner and Ms. Dawson and
9(...continued)
longer expressly requires that a taxpayer seeking relief as an
innocent spouse show that he or she did not significantly benefit
from items of income omitted from a joint return, the question of
significant benefit is nonetheless a factor properly to be
considered in deciding whether it is inequitable to hold a spouse
liable for the understatement attributable to the omission.
Estate of Krock v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 672, 678 (1989); Purcell
v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 228, 241 (1986), affd. 826 F.2d 470 (6th
Cir. 1987).
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011