- 46 -
affd. 94 Fed. Appx. 949 (3d Cir. 2004), we held that a requesting
spouse significantly benefited from the items giving rise to the
deficiency, which were tax shelter deductions, because she
received significant tax refunds as a result of the items.
Likewise, in this case, petitioner and Mr. Capehart received
substantial income tax refunds as a result of items giving rise
to the deficiencies. That petitioner and Mr. Capehart used the
refunds to invest in the Hoyt partnerships does not protect
petitioner from a conclusion that she and Mr. Capehart received a
significant benefit in the form of increased disposable cashflow.
We conclude that this factor applies and weighs against
petitioner’s claim for equitable relief under section 6015(f).
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
certainly 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
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011