- 13 -
joint return for 1994, does not produce a meaningful ratio. In
making the computation, respondent allowed petitioner a single
personal exemption and no exemption for any dependent. The 1994
return claimed five dependency exemptions, which claim was
accepted by respondent and is reflected in the actual 1994
liability. Obviously, the allowance of five dependency
exemptions reduced the actual 1994 liability. However, in
denying petitioner any benefit from the dependency exemptions in
computing his hypothetical separate liability, respondent has
produced a hypothetical liability that is necessarily inflated in
comparison to the actual 1994 liability. Although petitioner
raised the issue of the five dependents in his request for
relief, and testified at trial that he provided more than half of
their support in 1994, respondent never addressed the contention
in the determination letter or in his posttrial brief.
Respondent instead has simply treated petitioner as entitled to
no adjustment with respect to dependency exemptions in
calculating petitioner’s share of the unpaid liability. Since
the unpaid liability reflects an allowance for five dependency
exemptions, respondent’s calculation-–which effectively allocates
the allowance for the five dependency exemptions to Ms. Wiest
-–necessarily inflates petitioner’s share of the unpaid liability
in comparison to Ms. Wiest’s. Respondent has offered no argument
or evidence to support the allocation of the five dependency
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011