- 17 -
obligation to pay his and Ms. Cullen’s nontax debts incurred
prior to their divorce, he introduced no evidence as to his
current assets and/or net worth. Other than 3 months of bank
statements in 2003, petitioner likewise introduced no evidence of
his basic living expenses or other current debts that would show
he could not pay his current reasonable basic living expenses.
Although petitioner testified that he had a fixed income for 2003
of approximately $800 per month, the bank statements reflect
monthly deposits of between $950 and $1,050. The record does not
explain the source of the additional deposited funds or the
apparent discrepancies of $150 to $250 per month in petitioner’s
deposits versus his claimed monthly income. Petitioner’s
inconsistency on this point further weighs against him. See
Ogonoski v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-52.
The other three factors are neutral to petitioner. There
was no spousal abuse, the decree of divorce did not assign the
legal obligation to pay the Federal income tax at issue to either
spouse, and there was no evidence introduced at trial that
petitioner had not made a good faith effort to comply with the
Federal tax laws after 1999.
Of the factors weighing against relief, the most important
is present here and is the primary reason we deny petitioner’s
requested relief. That factor is petitioner’s actual knowledge,
when signing under penalty of perjury and filing the joint tax
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011