- 18 -
evidence to establish that she did not significantly benefit.”
We disagree.
First, significant benefit and lack of economic hardship are
separate and distinct negative factors. Pursuant to Rev. Proc.
2000-15, section 4.03(2)(c), the existence of the former requires
evidence that “[t]he requesting spouse significantly benefitted
(beyond normal support) from the unpaid liability or items giving
rise to the deficiency.” In contrast, economic hardship exists
if the requesting spouse, in the absence of relief from the
liability, is unable to pay his or her customary “reasonable
basic living expenses.” Sec. 301.6343-1(b)(4), Proced. & Admin.
Regs.8
As to whether petitioner enjoyed a significant benefit,
there is no evidence that petitioner received any benefit from
either the unpaid tax liability or the proceeds of the IRA
distribution. She did not learn of the distribution, which
occurred sometime in 1996, until April 1998. After Louis’s
death, she tried, unsuccessfully, to locate those funds.
Moreover, she discharged the tax liability resulting from the IRA
distribution, plus interest thereon, with borrowed funds that she
had deposited in her own separate bank account. Nor is there any
8 Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.02(1)(c), 2000-1 C.B. at 448,
provides, in pertinent part, that “the determination of whether a
requesting spouse will suffer economic hardship * * * will be
based on rules similar to those provided in sec. 301.6343-1(b)(4)
of the Regulations on Procedure and Administration.”
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