- 5 -
would suffer undue economic hardship, whether the requesting
spouse “had no reason to know that the liability would not be
paid”, and whether the requesting spouse significantly benefited
beyond normal support from the unpaid liability. See Rev. Proc.
2000-15, sec. 4.03(1) and (2), 2000-1 C.B. at 448-449. “No
single factor will be determinative of whether equitable relief
will or will not be granted in any particular case. Rather all
factors will be considered and weighed appropriately.” Rev.
Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03, 2000-1 C.B. at 448.
Petitioner executed the 1997 return voluntarily. The unpaid
amount was clearly shown on the return that she executed. She
must have known that there was an amount owing, or at the very
least had reason to know that there was an unpaid tax liability.
It may be, as petitioner testified, that she thought that the
unpaid tax liability would be paid by intervenor. But, under the
ultimate property decree entered on July 28, 1999, 18 months
after the original decree, the house was transferred to
petitioner with the understanding that she would continue to pay
the joint debts. We note that petitioner’s 1998 overpayment was
credited against the 1997 tax liability on April 15, 1999, 3
months before the final decree was entered. It would seem that
at least by then she was aware that the 1997 tax liability had
not been paid. Nonetheless, she agreed that she would continue
to pay the joint debts.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011