- 18 -
sense to which the tax law or common experience will accord any
recognition.
Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03, lists the following two
factors whose presence the Commissioner weighs against granting
relief and whose absence the Commissioner treats as neutral: (1)
The requesting spouse significantly benefited (beyond normal
support) from the unpaid liability, and (2) the requesting spouse
has not made a good faith effort to comply with Federal income
tax laws in the tax years following the tax year to which the
request for relief relates.
Although there is no record evidence to establish that Mr.
Ogonoski failed to contribute any of his financial resources,
including any of his separate funds attributable to the unpaid
taxes, to their household for basic living expenses or to pay the
mortgage on their $71,000 house, such payments are not lavish
expenditures beyond what is required for petitioner’s normal
support. See, e.g., Foley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-16.
There is no evidence Mr. Ogonoski gave petitioner any money in
excess of the amounts petitioner required for normal support.
Because Mr. Ogonoski controlled the finances of his excavation
business and had his own checking accounts related to his
business that petitioner did not control or have access to,
petitioner was unable to stop Mr. Ogonoski from using for his own
personal purposes the funds made available by his failures to pay
the taxes due. As stated above, Rev. Proc. 2000-15, supra,
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