-66-
respectively, and the balance due on her townhouse, $34,987, was
effectively canceled. These transfers exceed normal support.
Furthermore, sometime between September of 1991 and May of
1992, petitioner transferred $150,000 to Mrs. Jones, which she
had in a bank account in her name at the time of trial. Mrs.
Jones cites Terzian v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 1164 (1979), as
support for her contention that the receipt of a lump-sum payment
in the nature of support from her husband does not preclude the
grant of innocent spouse relief.
We agree with Mrs. Jones that a payment in the nature of
ordinary support is not an equitable bar to innocent spouse
relief. However, the facts in Terzian which led this Court to
conclude in that case that a spouse's one-time transfer of
$155,000 to the taxpayer was for ordinary support are not present
in the instant case. At the time of trial in that case, Mrs.
Terzian had been separated from her husband, Dr. Terzian, for
more than 2 years and had a suit for divorce pending against him
that became final shortly after the trial concluded. In the
divorce proceeding no claim for alimony was made, and none was
awarded. Id. at 1165 n.2, 1172. In his answer to the taxpayer's
complaint for divorce, Dr. Terzian alleged that he had
transferred funds to the taxpayer for support. Id. at 1172 n.4.
Moreover, at the time of trial, Mrs. Terzian had spent
$20,000 of the transferred funds for living expenses and in
connection with her daughter's education. Finally, Mrs. Terzian
Page: Previous 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011