- 20 -
to his will, was bequeathed to persons other than petitioner. We
find that petitioner did not benefit from those funds.9
4. Overall Application of the Factors Under Rev.
Proc. 2000-15, Section 4.03
We conclude from examining respondent’s “Explanation of
Items” attached to the notice of determination that, in rejecting
petitioner’s request for innocent spouse relief, respondent
failed to apply six of the eight factors listed in Rev. Proc.
2000-15, section 4.03. Based upon the evidence before us (and
before respondent at the time he considered petitioner’s
application for innocent spouse relief), we find that all but one
of the factors listed in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, section 4.03, are
either favorable to petitioner or neutral.
a. Petitioner’s Marital Status
At the time petitioner requested relief, Louis was deceased.
We view that circumstance, with respect to petitioner, as
tantamount to her being separated or divorced. Therefore, we
conclude that that factor is favorable. See Rev. Proc. 2000-15,
sec. 4.03(1)(a).10
9 See Mysse v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 680, 699 (1972), in
which we stated that, where there is an inability to trace
unreported funds attributable to one spouse, the benefit to the
other spouse cannot constitute more than ordinary support, which
means that the latter did not significantly benefit from the
funds.
10 See H. Conf. Rept. 105-599, at 252 n.16 (1988), 1998-3
C.B. 747, 1006, wherein the conferees, in discussing the
(continued...)
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