Nancy M. O'Neill, Petitioner, and Robert B. Wollow, Intervenor - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
          Significant Benefit                                                         
               The record does not indicate that petitioner benefited                 
          beyond normal support from not paying the 1998 joint liability.             
          As articulated in Ewing v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 32, 45 (2004),            
          this factor weighs in favor of granting relief.                             
          Source of the Liability and Noncompliance With Federal Income Tax           
               These two factors are neutral.  First, the record reflects             
          that the 1998 joint liability was attributable to both petitioner           
          and Mr. Wollow.  Second, there is no evidence that petitioner has           
          not made a good-faith effort to comply with the Federal income              
          tax laws since 1998.                                                        
               Petitioner’s main contention in this proceeding has been               
          that, because the 1998 joint liability was ultimately paid from             
          her separate property rather than from her and Mr. Wollow’s                 
          community property, she is entitled to equitable relief.                    
          Although we understand petitioner’s frustration with the apparent           
          lack of fairness, such circumstances alone are not grounds for              
          relief under section 6015(f).  Petitioner knew when the 1998                
          joint return was filed that she had an obligation to pay the 1998           
          joint liability and that some of her assets would be used to pay            
          it.  The fact that respondent applied her 1999 tax refund to the            
          1998 tax liability instead of waiting for the bankruptcy court to           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011