- 19 -
$7,500 for the 6 years in question.8 We conclude that
petitioner’s contention has no merit because petitioner filed
joint returns with Mr. George, and we must base our decision on
the actual facts of the instant case. Consequently, because a
significant portion of the unpaid liability is attributable to
petitioner, the liability attribution negative factor weighs
against relief.
The knowledge negative factor weighs against relief. As
noted above, we believe that petitioner knew or had reason to
know that the reported liabilities would be unpaid at the time
petitioner signed the returns.
The significant benefit negative factor weighs against
relief. “Significant benefit” for purposes of section
6015(b)(1)(D) is defined in section 1.6015-2(d), Income Tax
Regs.:
(d) Inequity. All of the facts and circumstances
are considered in determining whether it is inequitable
to hold a requesting spouse jointly and severally
liable for an understatement. One relevant factor for
this purpose is whether the requesting spouse
significantly benefitted, directly or indirectly, from
the understatement. A significant benefit is any
benefit in excess of normal support. Evidence of
direct or indirect benefit may consist of transfers of
property or rights to property, including transfers
that may be received several years after the year of
the understatement. Thus, for example, if a requesting
spouse receives property (including life insurance
8Petitioner reaches this amount by subtracting withholding
of $3,750 from $4,250 of estimated annual tax liability and
adding penalties and interest.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011