- 28 -
that would be imposed on the spouse seeking the relief if such
relief were denied. Sanders v. United States, 509 F.2d at 171
n.16; Peterson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-18; Edmondson v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-393; Petitioner offered evidence of
future probable hardship if relief were denied. Since the
divorce, petitioner's standard of living has decreased. A major
factor to petitioner's hardship is the financial drain of medical
costs, which arose from Erik's accident. After selling the
family home in 1988 and reinvesting in the Palmdale home, she had
to refinance the home to pay Erik's medical bills. Currently,
while the Palmdale home is held as a rental property, the rental
income derived from the property does not cover the mortgage on
the property. The profit-sharing fund was rolled over into an
individual retirement account for the benefit of petitioner;
however, this was after withdrawing funds for attorney's fees for
the divorce and for medical expenses for Erik.
Since the divorce in 1983, petitioner has worked part-time.
She attended college on a part-time basis from 1983 through 1985,
but had to quit when Mr. Aude did not pay alimony to petitioner.
In 1990, petitioner enrolled in a junior college to study
computers. Presently, petitioner and her current husband are
unemployed.
Currently, Mr. Aude is financially stable, but through a
bankruptcy proceeding he has been discharged of his obligation on
his tax liability. If relief were not afforded to petitioner,
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