- 6 -
benefit of the “no reason to know” factor under Rev. Proc. 2000-
15, supra.
Petitioner submitted an income and expense declaration to
respondent, which showed monthly expenses exceeding her monthly
income by $1,605. At trial, intervenor mentioned a house
petitioner owns. As a result of the divorce, the house owned by
petitioner and intervenor was foreclosed. Subsequently, family
friends gave petitioner a house, in which she lives with her
children. Petitioner has a tenant and uses the rent to make
mortgage payments. The rent is less than the interest due and no
payments are made on principal. Petitioner explained this
resulted in negative amortization and the principal increases
each month. Respondent concluded that petitioner would suffer
undue economic hardship.
Because of the manner in which intervenor controlled the
finances, petitioner did not benefit beyond normal support from
the unpaid liability. Respondent gave petitioner the benefit of
this factor.
Based on our review of the record, we find that respondent
did not abuse his discretion in concluding that petitioner was
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011