- 12 -
deficiencies. See Dakil v. United States, 496 F.2d 431, 433 (10th
Cir. 1974).
On brief, petitioner argues that she should not be held liable
for helping her son start his business. This, however, is not a
basis for innocent spouse relief.
It is unclear from the record whether petitioner benefited
from the omitted income; however, it is clear that the omitted
income items constituted more than 100 percent of the reported
income. There is no evidence that the omitted income was used in
a manner that did not benefit petitioner. In fact, the income from
the Ruidoso Valley Chamber of Commerce was deposited into an
account petitioner owned and was used to make payments on her
house, truck, and travel trailer during 1991.
In examining the inequity of holding petitioner liable, we
also consider the status of the Muhns' marriage because it may
affect petitioner's ability to satisfy the tax liability. In this
regard, we are mindful that the parties stipulated that petitioner
and her husband (1) were not contemplating separation or divorce,
(2) have not entered into any marital property agreements, and (3)
did not own separate property.
Giving consideration to all the facts herein, we do not
believe it would be inequitable to hold petitioner liable for the
deficiencies and additions to tax.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011