- 23 -
measured by a couple's circumstances, is not considered a
significant benefit. Sanders v. United States, 509 F.2d at 168;
Terzian v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. at 1172; Mysse v. Commissioner,
57 T.C. at 699. A significant benefit exists if expenditures
have been made which are unusual for the taxpayer's accustomed
lifestyle. Terzian v. Commissioner, supra. Other factors
include: (1) Whether the spouse seeking relief has been deserted
by the other spouse or is divorced or separated from that spouse,
sec. 1.6013-5(b), Income Tax Regs.; and (2) probable future
hardships that would be visited upon the purportedly "innocent
spouse" were he or she not relieved from liability. Sanders v.
United States, supra at 171 n.16.
Based upon the record in the instant case, we conclude that
petitioner has failed to establish that she did not receive
significant benefits from the funds that Mr. Goings received from
Bordelon. Petitioner has failed to establish that Mr. Goings
used the kickback funds in a manner that did not benefit her
significantly. To the contrary, the record indicates that such
funds were used for the significant benefit of the family. A
total of $110,767, or nearly 11 percent, of the omitted income
was deposited into the couple's joint checking account.
Petitioner managed and drew checks against that account.
Similarly, $760,000 of the kickback funds was deposited into the
couple's joint Merrill Lynch investment account and was
subsequently invested in various assets. Additionally,
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011