- 27 -
against granting equitable relief to petitioner for all of the
subject years. As stated in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03(2)(b),
the presence of this factor is an “extremely strong factor
weighing against relief”, and a taxpayer such as petitioner may
offset this factor and qualify for equitable relief only in “very
limited situations” where “the factors in favor of equitable
relief are unusually strong”.
iii. Significant Benefit
Petitioner argues that she did not significantly benefit
beyond normal support from the shelter losses giving rise to the
deficiencies. According to petitioner, the only substantial
asset that the Albins purchased during the subject years was the
home that they purchased in Dana Point. We reject petitioner’s
argument.13
The claimed shelter losses giving rise to the deficiencies
provided both of the Albins with significantly more disposable
income than they otherwise would have had. In order to determine
whether petitioner significantly benefited from those claimed
shelter losses, we consider whether the Albins were able to make
expenditures in each of the subject years that they otherwise
13 We note at the start that petitioner fails to mention
that in addition to the Albins’ home in Dana Point, they also
purchased during the subject years one of their three rental
properties and did so with a $20,000 cash downpayment. We also
note that the Albins purchased their second home in 1987 with a
cash downpayment of $200,000.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011