- 20 -
not satisfy the conceded deficiencies. Petitioner notes that
“Although [Mr. Von Kalinowski] may have the income and assets to
pay the liability there is no assurance that he will do so.”
From this, petitioner concludes that she will suffer “substantial
future hardship” if she is not relieved of the liability. The
hardship which petitioner describes is contingent upon (a) Mr.
Von Kalinowski's not satisfying the deficiencies during his
lifetime, and (b) Mr. Von Kalinowski's passing away and
disinheriting petitioner. We do not believe that this
hypothetical hardship is sufficient to satisfy the requirements
of section 6015(b)(1)(D). Rather, the statute requires that the
taxpayer demonstrate that the imposition of joint and several
liability is inequitable in present terms.
As things presently stand, petitioner and Mr. Von Kalinowski
remain married. The two have not separated, and petitioner has
not been left by her husband to “face the music”. Instead,
petitioner continues to enjoy the lifestyle and financial
security that are largely attributable to her husband’s assets
and income. Simply put, petitioner has not been deserted in the
sense foreseen by the legislators who enacted the predecessor to
the section 6015(b)(1) relief from joint liability. See Hayman
v. Commissioner, 992 F.2d at 1263; Meyer v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1996-400; Prince v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-368.
Petitioner also contends that she did not significantly
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011