- 21 -
Furthermore, lavish expenditures existed as compared with
the family's earlier levels of income, standard of living, and
spending patterns. Petitioner lived an extremely affluent
lifestyle, residing in a Gatsbyesque mansion on Long Island's
fabled Gold Coast. Such a high standard of living differed
greatly from the modest lifestyle of the Meyer family when they
resided at the ranch house in Lindenhurst. "To be entitled to
the benefits of section 6013(e) a spouse is not required to have
perfect knowledge of the family's finances; nor is * * * [he]
required to see that the family maintains a balanced budget;
however * * * [he] cannot close * * * [his] eyes to unusual or
lavish expenditures." Mysse v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 680, 699
(1972). See also Resser v. Commissioner, supra at 1540. Mrs.
Meyer's situation contrasts sharply with that of the petitioner
in Price v. Commissioner, 887 F.2d at 965, where there were no
unusually lavish expenditures when compared to prior levels of
income, standard of living and spending patterns, and the husband
took advantage of the petitioner's failure to understand
financial matters.
Furthermore, the record fails to show evasiveness or deceit
regarding the couple's finances on the part of Mr. Meyer. Unlike
Friedman, where the husband concealed his gambling addiction and
the enormous amounts of money he had lost, no evidence suggests
that Mrs. Meyer's husband intentionally misled her or hid
information from her that would support a grant of innocent
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011