- 25 -
Also to be considered is whether the spouse claiming relief has
been deserted, divorced, or separated. Kistner v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1995-66; sec. 1.6013-5(b), Income Tax Regs.
Further, in deciding whether it would be inequitable to hold
a spouse liable for understatements of tax, it is relevant to
consider the probable future hardships that would be imposed on
the spouse seeking relief, if such relief was denied. Sanders v.
United States, supra at 171 n.16; Dakil v. United States, 496
F.2d 431, 433 (10th Cir. 1974).
Petitioner argues that it would be inequitable for her to be
held liable for any understatements of tax relating to
Mr. Makalintal’s sale of ICPI stock and to the deposits into
Mr. Makalintal and petitioner’s bank accounts because she did not
significantly benefit from any understatements of income and
because she and the children received the same level of financial
support from Mr. Makalintal during 1986, 1987, and 1988 that she
and the children had received in prior years and because she
received little from him in later years.
Respondent argues that it would not be inequitable to hold
petitioner liable for any understatements in tax relating to the
above issues because Mr. Makalintal and petitioner lived a lavish
lifestyle in comparison to the income reported on the returns and
because petitioner was to receive substantial funds and property
from Mr. Makalintal under the property settlement agreement.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011