- 8 -
cross-examine petitioner on these points and offered no evidence
to contradict petitioner’s testimony.
Respondent contends that petitioner has not shown that she
would suffer economic hardship if relief from liability is denied
because her hardship is hypothetical. Respondent relies on Von
Kalinowski v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-21, for the
proposition that section 6015(b) requires the taxpayer to show
that the imposition of joint and several liability is inequitable
in terms of the present and not in terms of a future hypothetical
situation. Respondent’s reliance on Von Kalinowski is misplaced.
In Von Kalinowski, the taxpayer’s hardship was contingent on her
wealthy husband’s not paying the deficiencies during his lifetime
and his dying and disinheriting her. We concluded that the
taxpayer’s situation was not a hardship for purposes of section
6015(b). In contrast, petitioner has shown that she will suffer
economic hardship if she is held liable for the 1983 deficiency.
Thus, we reject respondent’s reliance on Von Kalinowski.
Respondent further contends that petitioner will not suffer
economic hardship if relief is denied because she and Ferrarese
share a bank account and a credit card and function as a single
economic unit. Respondent also contends that the deficiency will
be satisfied from that bank account whether or not petitioner is
denied relief from joint and several liability. We disagree
because the only evidence in the record about petitioner’s joint
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011