Robert L. Beck - Page 20

                                       - 20 -                                         
          Petitioners have presented no evidence to establish that Mrs.               
          Beck was unaware of the Schedule E community income.                        
               Mrs. Beck has also failed to establish that it would be                
          “inequitable” within the meaning of section 66(c)(4) to include             
          her community share of Dr. Beck’s earnings in her income.  The              
          legislative history of section 66(c)(4) indicates that an                   
          important factor to consider in this regard is “whether the                 
          spouse [who is seeking relief under section 66(c)] benefitted               
          from the untaxed income”.  H. Rept. 98-432 (Part 2), at 1503                
          (1984).  As previously discussed, in 1994 and 1995, Mrs. Beck               
          made significant deposits of dental practice income into her                
          separate bank account and petitioners’ joint bank accounts.11  In           
          1995, Mrs. Beck used dental practice income in purchasing the               
          more than 100 acres of the Blanco property.  Mrs. Beck has not              
          shown that she did not benefit from the community property                  
               The last sentence of section 66(c) (the section 66(c)                  
          equitable relief provision) provides for relief from liability if           
          “it is inequitable to hold the individual liable for any unpaid             

               11 The record does not reveal whether Mrs. Beck made similar           
          deposits in other years in issue.  The record contains no                   
          evidence to indicate that she did not benefit from the dental               
          practice income or from the Schedule E income.  We cannot assume            
          that the missing evidence would be favorable to Mrs. Beck.                  
          Indeed, the normal inference is that the missing evidence would             
          be unfavorable.  See Pollack v. Commissioner, 47 T.C. 92, 108               
          (1966), affd. 392 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1968).                                 

Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011