- 15 - shelter deductions.13 Petitioner testified that the refund checks were deposited into the family checking account to “Do the household things we wanted to do.” Additionally, the parties’ stipulation that petitioner and her husband enjoyed two vacation trips to Europe immediately after this Court’s decision that the couple owed significant amounts of Federal income tax weighs heavily against her. In determining the equity of the sought-after relief, we also find it significant that petitioner and her husband tried to thwart respondent’s collection activities. The record demonstrates that after this Court sustained respondent’s deficiency determinations, petitioner and her family engaged in a systematic plan to put their assets beyond the reach of respondent’s legitimate collection activities. Petitioner and her husband encumbered their personal residence, which they had previously owned lien free. The proceeds of the mortgage were immediately converted into cash and cash equivalents and spread among petitioner’s children by deposit into freshly opened bank accounts in the children’s names. Petitioner and her husband liquidated investments and transferred the funds to their children. The children used transferred funds to pay their 13By their very nature, the erroneous deductions provided the Doyles with more disposable income than they otherwise would have had. For example, the Doyles “sheltered” approximately 69 percent of their 1980 income.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