- 17 -
economic hardship if relief is denied; (2) in the case of a
liability that arose from a deficiency, the requesting spouse did
not know and had no reason to know of the items giving rise to
the deficiency; (3) the liability for which relief is sought is
attributable to the nonrequesting spouse; and (4) the
nonrequesting spouse has a legal obligation pursuant to a divorce
decree or agreement to pay the outstanding liability (this factor
weighs against relief only if the requesting spouse has the
obligation). The economic hardship factor weighs against
petitioner because she failed to provide any evidence
establishing economic hardship in this case (and argues,
unpersuasively, that the economic hardship requirement is
“discriminatory and unconstitutional”). Petitioner argues that
the knowledge or reason to know factor and the attribution factor
weigh in favor of granting her relief. We address those
arguments below. The legal obligation factor is neutral in this
case because neither petitioner nor Apostle was required by their
divorce decree to pay any of the unpaid interest.
Petitioner contends that, even though it was the improper
treatment of her income (i.e., the gain that she realized on the
sale of the New York apartment) on the first amended joint return
that caused an understatement on that return and the 1992-1994
interest liability to accrue, she had no knowledge or reason to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011