Cathy Miller Hardy - Page 19

                                       - 19 -                                         
          knowledge for purposes of section 66(c)".  Id. at 70.                       
               With respect to the requirement in section 66(c)(4), on the            
          present record, we find that it would not be inequitable to in-             
          clude in petitioner's gross income for the years at issue one-              
          half of the income that was paid to and/or earned by Mr. Hardy              
          during those years.19  The legislative history of section                   
          66(c)(4) indicates that one of the factors to be taken into ac-             
          count in making a determination under that section is "whether              
          the spouse [who is seeking relief under section 66(c)] benefitted           
          from the untaxed income".  H. Rept. 98-432, at 1503 (1984).  We             
          have found that Mr. Hardy used at least a portion of the income             
          that was paid to him during the years at issue to pay at least              
          some of the living expenses.  On the record before us, we find              
          that petitioner benefited from the income that was paid to and/or           
          earned by Mr. Hardy during those years.                                     
               Based on our review of the entire record in the instant                
          case, we find that neither section 66(b) nor section 66(c)                  


          19  Petitioner contends that it would be inequitable to include             
          in her gross income for the years at issue a portion of the in-             
          come paid to and/or earned by Mr. Hardy during those years                  
          because respondent previously determined deficiencies and as-               
          sessed tax against Mr. Hardy with respect to that income, and               
          such inclusion would result in double taxation of the same in-              
          come.  Assuming arguendo that double taxation of the same income            
          were a relevant consideration for purposes of sec. 66(c)(4),                
          respondent has represented that she would abate the tax assessed            
          against Mr. Hardy if the Court were to find against petitioner on           
          the community income issue, see supra note 17, and, in that                 
          event, there would be no double taxation of the same income.                





Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011