- 21 -
nor constructive knowledge of the understatements, her claim for
relief pursuant to section 6015 must still fail. As discussed
below, the evidence indicates that pursuant to section
6015(b)(1)(D) it would not be inequitable to hold petitioner
liable for the deficiencies attributable to the understatements
in question.
A material factor that informs our analysis under section
6015(b)(1)(D) is whether there has been a “significant benefit to
the spouse claiming relief”. Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C.
106, 119 (2002) (citing Hayman v. Commissioner, supra at 1262).12
Petitioner alleges that she did not benefit from the
understatements in question. On brief, petitioner states: “The
money that should have been paid to the Internal Revenue Service
* * * was taken by * * * [Dr. Barranco’s] accountant or was * * *
eventually seized.” Petitioner, however, fails to account for at
least $655,844 of the $1,693,725 total understatements.13
12 The “equity” test of sec. 6015(b)(1)(D) is virtually
identical to the “equity” test of former sec. 6013(e)(1)(D);
therefore, cases interpreting former sec. 6013(e)(1)(D) inform
our analysis pursuant to sec. 6015(b)(1)(D). Jonson v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 119 (2002).
13 As previously noted, Dr. Barranco testified that his
accountant withheld 10 percent (i.e., approximately $587,881) of
the $5,878,813 of income omitted during the 10 years at issue and
that an estimated $400,000 or $450,000 was seized from his
investment accounts pursuant to the criminal investigation of his
tax fraud. The understatements for the years at issue total
$1,693,725. Thus, Dr. Barranco’s testimony fails to account for
at least $655,844 of the total understatements ($1,693,725 minus
($587,881 plus $450,000)).
(continued...)
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011