- 59 -
significant benefit for purposes of section 6015(b)(1)(D). See
Mysse v. Commissioner, supra at 698; see also sec. 1.6013-5(b),
Income Tax Regs. Additionally, Barbara's joint property right in
the National City account does not constitute a significant
benefit. See Dakil v. United States, 496 F.2d 431 (10th Cir.
1974). Barbara actually withdrew only amounts for items
constituting ordinary support.
Barbara did not significantly benefit from the omitted
income. See Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 291. Barbara
paid for her college tuition with a student loan and maximized
her credit card. She and Raymond lived in the same house for
more than 21 years; they bought only inexpensive used cars; they
refinanced their house, and their children paid for their own
educations. Barbara's lifestyle did not change on account of the
receipt of the omitted income. There were no unusual transfers
of property to Barbara during either the years at issue. If
anything, Raymond's activity may have worked to Barbara's
detriment.
Taking into account all the facts and circumstances, we find
it would be inequitable to hold Barbara liable for the deficiency
in tax. See Dakil v. United States, supra; Mysse v.
Commissioner, supra.
Therefore, we find that Barbara qualifies for relief under
section 6015(b)(1) with respect to the understatement of tax
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011