- 23 -
5. Significant Benefit and Noncompliance
Respondent did not address the significant benefit factor and
the noncompliance with Federal law factor. We, however, shall do
so, and after due consideration, we find that neither of these
factors weighs against granting relief to petitioner.
Petitioner did not significantly benefit, either during or
after the marriage, from the unpaid 1989 tax liability. During the
marriage, petitioner did not receive expensive jewelry, drive a
luxurious car, wear designer clothes, take expensive vacations, or
even own a home. Petitioner received no assets from the
dissolution of the marriage. Moreover, since the divorce, she has
received no spousal or child support. Petitioner rents a small
house, drives an automobile that she does not own, and does not
take vacations.
With respect to compliance with Federal tax laws, petitioner
has always filed timely Federal income tax returns. Petitioner is
not late or in arrears on any of her separate tax obligations.
Indeed, petitioner has overpaid her taxes each year since 1994, and
it is these overpayments for which petitioner seeks a refund
because they were applied to the unpaid 1989 tax liability.
6. Conclusion
No factors weigh against granting relief to petitioner. To
the contrary, all factors either weigh in favor of granting relief
to petitioner or are neutral. Consequently, taking into account
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011