Arlene C. Ogonoski - Page 19

                                       - 19 -                                         
          states that the significant benefit factor can only favor the               
          Commissioner.  In contrast, in cases decided under old section              
          6013(e) in which the spouse seeking relief did not significantly            
          benefit from the omitted income or erroneous deductions                     
          attributable to the other spouse, the fact that the taxpayer did            
          not significantly benefit weighed in favor of granting relief.              
          See, e.g., Belk v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 434, 440-441 (1989);               
          Foley v. Commissioner, supra.  We conclude that this factor                 
          favors petitioner.  See Ewing v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. ___, ___            
          (2004) (slip op. at 22-23); Ferrarese v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.           
          2002-249.                                                                   
               The noncompliance factor weighs against granting relief.               
          Petitioner failed to make a good faith effort to comply with                
          Federal income tax laws in the tax years following 1989 though              
          1997, the tax years for which she requests relief.  Petitioner              
          continued to help prepare, sign, and file tax returns for 1998              
          and 1999 without paying the reported liabilities on those returns           
          even though she was painfully aware of the “pattern” of                     
          nonpayment for returns before 1998.                                         
               With respect to the factors under Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec.             
          4.03, two factors weigh in favor of relief, three factors weigh             
          against relief, and the other factors are neutral.  Petitioner              
          fails to satisfy any of the three conditions required for relief            
          under Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.02.                                        






Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011