- 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
income.
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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011