- 21 -
benefit from the tax savings generated by the understatement.
Whether the relief-seeking spouse has significantly benefited
from the understatement in tax is a factor to be considered in
weighing the equities. See sec. 1.6013-5(b), Income Tax Regs.
Transfers of property to the relief-seeking spouse are relevant
in determining the existence of a significant benefit, and such
transfers are not limited to the tax years to which the
understatement relates. See id. Mr. Von Kalinowski testified
that he contributed approximately $500,000 to petitioner’s travel
agency over the course of the 15-year period in which the
business was operational. These contributions were of obvious
benefit to petitioner, and the amount of such transfers renders
petitioner’s argument that she did not significantly benefit from
the tax savings unpersuasive.
Finally, a factor which may be taken into account in
weighing the equities is whether the failure to report the
correct tax liability in this case resulted from concealment,
overreaching, or other wrongdoing on the part of the spouse not
seeking relief. See Hayman v. Commissioner, supra at 1262; McCoy
v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 732, 735 (1972). No such untoward
circumstances are present in this case. Rather, the
understatement in tax is attributable to a mistaken belief on the
part of Mr. Von Kalinowski as well as his accountant as to the
legitimacy of the tax shelter deductions. Under these
circumstances, we perceive no inequity in holding both spouses to
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