Patricia S. Makalintal - Page 25

                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011