- 14 -
One particularly relevant factor “is whether the requesting
spouse significantly benefited, directly or indirectly, from the
understatement.”12 Sec. 1.6015-2(d), Income Tax Regs. “Normal
support”, however, is not considered a significant benefit. See
Friedman v. Commissioner, supra at 532; Hayman v. Commissioner,
supra at 1262; Flynn v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 355, 367 (1989).
“‘Unusual support or transfers of property to the spouse would,
however, constitute “benefit” and should be taken into
consideration * * *’ even when the benefit was received ‘several
years after the year in which the omitted item should have been
included in gross income’”. Estate of Krock v. Commissioner, 93
T.C. 672, 679 (1989) (quoting S. Rept. 91-1537, supra at 3,
1971-1 C.B. at 607-608); see Hayman v. Commissioner, supra at
1262.
We find that petitioner significantly benefited from the
unpaid liability or items giving rise to the deficiency. See
Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03(2)(c), 2000-1 C.B. 447, 449. The
Doyles received significant tax refunds as a result of the tax
12The original predecessor of sec. 6015 explicitly required
the consideration of “whether or not the other spouse
significantly benefitted directly or indirectly from the items
omitted from gross income.” See Act of Jan. 12, 1971, Pub. L.
91-679, sec. 1, 84 Stat. 2063. Although such consideration is no
longer an explicit requirement of the statute, nonetheless, it is
still a factor of significance. See Estate of Krock v.
Commissioner, 93 T.C. 672, 679 (1989); Purcell v. Commissioner,
86 T.C. 228, 242 (1986), affd. 826 F.2d 470 (6th Cir. 1987); H.
Rept. 98-432 (Part 2), at 1501, 1502 (1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011