- 48 -
of Appeals is sent shall be presumed
to have as its principal purpose the
avoidance of tax or payment of tax.
(II) Exceptions.–-Subclause
(I) shall not apply to any transfer
* * * which an individual estab-
lishes did not have as its principal
purpose the avoidance of tax or pay-
ment of tax.
Petitioner has failed to establish the date on which the IRS
sent to her the first letter of proposed deficiency which allowed
her an opportunity for administrative review in respondent’s
Appeals Office. However, 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 assets42 and that Mr. Monsour agreed and did so. On the
record before us, we find that the principal purpose of Mr.
Monsour’s transfers to petitioner was not the avoidance of tax or
payment of tax. See sec. 6015(c)(4)(B)(ii). On that record, we
further find that petitioner has established that the presumption
in section 6015(c)(4)(B)(ii) is not applicable in this case. On
the record before us, we find that Mr. Monsour did not transfer
any disqualified assets to petitioner. On that record, we further
find that for each of the taxable years at issue petitioner
satisfies the threshold condition set forth in section 4.01(6) of
Revenue Procedure 2000-15.
42See supra note 3.
Page: Previous 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011