Mitchell S. Wiest - Page 13




                                       - 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