- 6 -
has not carried her burden of establishing that the deductions
were grossly erroneous.
B. Inequitability Requirement
Under section 6013(e)(1)(D), Mrs. Vega must establish that
it would be inequitable to hold her liable for the deficiencies
in 1988 and 1989. In deciding this matter, we consider whether
(1) she significantly benefited from the understatements; (2) Mr.
Vega had divorced, deserted, or separated from her; and (3) she
would face probable future hardships if relief were denied.
Makalintal v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-9, and the cases
cited therein; Cousins v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-129, and
the cases cited therein.
Mrs. Vega lived with and was supported by her husband during
1988 and 1989. She did not produce any evidence to disprove that
she significantly benefited from the understatements. Although
her husband died in 1990, the record does not establish how much
property passed to Mrs. Vega under California's law of intestacy.
Therefore, she has not met her burden of proving that it would be
inequitable to hold her liable.
Because Mrs. Vega has not satisfied every element of section
6013(e), she is not relieved of liability for the deficiencies
relating to 1988 and 1989.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: May 25, 2011