- 22 -
1.6013-5(b), Income Tax Regs. Unusual support and receipt of
property, however, would constitute a significant benefit. See
S. Rept. 91-1537 at 3-4 (1970), 1971-1 C.B. 606, 607-608. In the
instant cases, there is no evidence that Mrs. Hemmings derived
any benefits from the understatements generated by the ACLI and
ELMS transactions. The benefits, such as they were, inured to
Mr. Hemmings, Mr. Brown, and Brown Transport. When we look at
the bottom line, Mrs. Hemmings has suffered a severe financial
hemorrhage. Prior to and during the ACLI and ELMS period she had
assets valued at approximately $4,000,000. None of these assets
were derived from the tax savings. Currently she has assets
valued at approximately $400,000. It may be that she also has
notes from her husband totaling $4.5 million for moneys lent to
him. Her husband, however, has a negative net worth, and, while
the notes may not be valueless, their value is highly suspect.
We conclude that it would be inequitable to hold Mrs. Hemmings
liable for the underpayments attributable to the ACLI and ELMS
transactions.
In sum, we find that Mrs. Hemmings satisfies the
requirements of section 6013(e) and qualifies as an innocent
spouse.
ERTA Sections 508 and 509
Section 1256 was enacted by ERTA sections 508 and 509, 95
Stat. 333. Section 1256 generally provides, inter alia, that
regulated futures contracts must be marked to market on the last
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011