- 27 -
Petitioner and Mr. Aude only went on one vacation during the 3
years at issue. Their lifestyle was not lavish. We find that
these expenditures amounted to normal support and did not rise to
the level of unusual support.
Respondent relies on the fact that even though petitioner
did not control the family wealth, she benefited by having
additional funds available to help support her and her children
and also benefited in the divorce settlement. In the divorce
decree, tax refunds were not apportioned to petitioner, and Mr.
Aude acquired the Magnum investment. Petitioner received her
share of the marital assets, which included the family home,
household furniture, personal effects, a station wagon, and an
interest in Mr. Aude's retirement account. Also, while Mr. Aude
was ordered to pay alimony to petitioner, Mr. Aude was at times
in arrears. The amount of alimony, which ranged from $3,000 per
month in 1983 to $2,000 per month in 1986, was not extraordinary
in terms of her standard of living during the Audes' marriage.
Also, the increase in child support, which ranged from $1,000 per
month in 1983 to $1,500 per month in 1986 to $2,650 per month in
1989 to $1,600 per month currently, was due in part to Erik's
medical costs. We do not find that petitioner significantly
benefited from the tax savings attributable to the losses claimed
from the Magnum investment.
In assessing the equity in holding a spouse liable under
section 6013(e), we also consider the probable future hardships
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011