- 15 - 1994 return, we find his bare assertions, without any other support, an insufficient basis on which to attempt an allocation of the five dependency exemptions to him, especially in light of the fact that Ms. Wiest had income of $42,234, as compared to his income of $29,904, in 1994. If no allocation is attempted, the benefit of the five exemptions is effectively split equally between petitioner and Ms. Wiest, since the total liability for 1994 reflects the benefit of the dependency exemptions claimed on the return and accepted. In the circumstances of this case, splitting the benefit of the five dependency exemptions equally is appropriate. Using the foregoing principles, petitioner’s and Ms. Wiest’s respective shares of the underpayment could fairly be apportioned as follows. The gross income of $72,138 reported on the 1994 return consisted of petitioner’s wages of $29,904 and Ms. Wiest’s wages of $42,234. The reported total tax liability was $8,675. Petitioner’s share of the total tax liability was $3,596 (($29,904 � $72,138) x $8,675), and Ms. Wiest’s was $5,079 (($42,234 � $72,138) x $8,675). Petitioner’s share of the underpayment equals his share of the total liability ($3,596) less his withholdings ($2,696), or $900. The remaining portion of the underpayment ($3,162) is attributable to Ms. Wiest. We therefore reject petitioner’s contention that the underpayment is entirely attributable to Ms. Wiest, as well as respondent’sPage: 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