- 17 -
return militate against equitable relief simply because she had
to have known of the omission before she filed the amended return
and made the payment. Moreover, there is no evidence that
petitioner had any reason to know of the IRA distribution prior
to April 1998. The distribution was from one of Louis’s separate
accounts, and he never discussed it with her. Therefore, we find
no basis for respondent’s conclusion in the notice of
determination that a negative factor results because petitioner
knew of the IRA distribution.
3. Petitioner Did Not Benefit From the IRA
Distribution
The other negative factor relied upon by respondent in the
notice of determination as a basis for denying equitable relief
to petitioner is his finding that petitioner significantly
benefited from the unreported income. See Rev. Proc. 2000-15,
section 4.03(2)(c). There is no evidence in the record to
support that finding. Moreover, there is evidence (discussed
below) to suggest that petitioner did not benefit from the
unreported income.
Respondent argues that petitioner failed to establish that
she suffered “economic hardship” (a negative factor under Rev.
Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03(2)(d), 2000-1 C.B. at 449, and that the
evidence demonstrating lack of economic hardship “[supports] the
determination that petitioner significantly benefitted.”
Respondent also states that “[p]etitioner has not provided any
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011