- 42 -
That petitioner and Mr. Abelein decided to reinvest all or a
portion of their tax savings in DGE, rather than in a new home or
new cars, does not protect petitioner from a conclusion that she
and Mr. Abelein received a significant benefit in the form of
increased disposable cashflow. This negative factor applies and
weighs against granting petitioner’s claim for equitable relief
under section 6015(f). Ewing v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. at 44-45;
Capehart v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-268.
d. Lack of Economic Hardship
As we noted in our discussion of the positive counterpart of
this factor, petitioner did not introduce credible evidence to
enable us to ascertain her current salary and other income,
assets, debts, and reasonable living expenses, although she was
in a position to do so. A taxpayer’s failure to call witnesses
and produce relevant documentary evidence within her control
supports an inference that such testimony and documentation would
not support the taxpayer’s position. Wichita Terminal Elevator
Co. v. Commissioner, 6 T.C. 1158, 1165 (1946), affd. 162 F.2d 513
(10th Cir. 1947). Because of the negative inference that we draw
from petitioner’s failure to produce evidence of her current
financial condition, we conclude that requiring petitioner to pay
the liabilities from which she seeks relief would not result in
economic hardship as that term is defined under Rev. Proc. 2000-
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011