- 18 -
quirements in section 66(c)(1) and (2), she does not satisfy the
last two requirements in section 66(c)(3) and (4). We agree with
respondent.
With respect to the requirement in section 66(c)(3), on the
present record, we find (1) that petitioner knew, or had reason
to know, about the compensation that was paid to Mr. Hardy during
the years at issue and (2) that petitioner has failed to show
that she did not know, and had no reason to know, about the in-
terest that was paid to and/or earned by Mr. Hardy during those
years or the unemployment compensation that was paid to him
during 1984 and 1985. In this connection, we note that peti-
tioner's knowledge of an item of community income must be deter-
mined with reference to her knowledge of the particular income-
producing activity. See McGee v. Commissioner, 979 F.2d 66, 70
(5th Cir. 1992), affg. T.C. Memo. 1991-510. We have found that
during the years at issue, (1) Mr. Hardy was employed in the con-
struction industry; (2) petitioner was aware that Mr. Hardy was
employed in the construction industry; (3) income was reported to
respondent as having been, and was, paid to and/or earned by Mr.
Hardy; and (4) Mr. Hardy used at least a portion of the income
that was paid to him to pay at least some of the living expenses.
Although petitioner claims that she was not aware of the exact
amount of the income that was paid to and/or earned by Mr. Hardy
during the years at issue, "a spouse's unawareness of the exact
amount of an item of community income is not determinative of
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011