- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011