- 16 -
in the amount of $125,331.63 held jointly by Mr. and Mrs. Hall.
As a result, Mrs. Hall had over $500,000 of the distribution
proceeds available to her in the form of joint accounts. No
evidence was presented reflecting the ultimate disposition of the
funds in these accounts.5
The acquisition of joint saving or investment assets has
been held to constitute a significant benefit, thereby precluding
innocent spouse relief. Purificato v. Commissioner, 9 F.3d 290,
294 (3d Cir. 1993), affg. T.C. Memo. 1992-580. We believe the
facts here indicate that significant funds from the distribution
were available to Mrs. Hall via these joint accounts, and,
therefore, she has failed to demonstrate that she did not
significantly benefit from the omitted income.
Furthermore, where the understatement results from a
misapprehension of the tax laws by both spouses, then both
spouses are perceived to be "innocent", and there is no inequity
in holding them both to joint liability. Bokum v. Commissioner,
992 F.2d 1132, 1134-1135 (11th Cir. 1993), affg. 94 T.C. 126,
156-157 (1990); Hayman v. Commissioner, 992 F.2d 1256, 1262 (2d
Cir. 1993), affg. T.C. Memo. 1992-228; Lessinger v. Commissioner,
85 T.C. 824, 838 (1985), revd. on other grounds 872 F.2d 519 (2d
Cir. 1989); McCoy v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 732, 734-735 (1972).
The record indicates that both Mr. and Mrs. Hall were aware
5The balance of the distribution appears to have consisted
of real property. No evidence was offered by petitioners to show
who held title to this real property after the distribution.
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