- 46 -
the transfers, when made, did not have as their princi-
pal purpose the avoidance of the payment of tax. Many
of the transfers probably took place within the prohib-
ited period of I.R.C. �6015(c)(4)(B)(ii).
Threshold condition 7 of Section 4.01 requires
petitioner to show that she did not file the return with
fraudulent intent. Petitioner testified that the ap-
proximately $9,000 of omitted income for each of two
years from her law practice was conceded by her in the
settlement of the prior Tax Court case because in her
view the $18,000 of unreported income was a small a-
mount. This statement coupled with the unreported
income is some evidence of fraud on her part.
With respect to the threshold condition set forth in section
4.01(5) of Revenue Procedure 2000-15 (i.e., no assets were trans-
ferred between the spouses filing the joint return as part of a
fraudulent scheme by such spouses), we have found that, pursuant
to the prenuptial agreement, starting around 1989 petitioner asked
Mr. Monsour to make her the joint owner of at least certain of Mr.
Monsour’s assets40 and that Mr. Monsour agreed and did so. On the
record before us, we find that Mr. Monsour did not transfer any
assets to petitioner as part of a fraudulent scheme by such
spouses. On that record, we further find that for each of the
taxable years at issue petitioner satisfies the threshold condi-
tion set forth in section 4.01(5) of Revenue Procedure 2000-15.
With respect to the threshold condition set forth in section
4.01(6) of Revenue Procedure 2000-15 (i.e., there were no disqual-
ified assets transferred to the requesting spouse by the
40See supra note 3.
Page: Previous 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011