- 30 -
I. Conclusion
In regard to petitioner’s share of items of community income
reported on her return ($15,692.50 share of “wages”, $361.50 of
taxable interest, and $1,090 of IRA distribution), petitioner’s
marital status, lack of knowledge or reason to know of the wages
from Premium Fresh Juice, a lack of significant benefit, and poor
mental health weigh in favor of granting equitable relief. There
was insufficient evidence for us to evaluate petitioner’s
economic hardship, Mr. Bennett’s legal obligation pursuant to a
divorce decree or agreement, and her compliance with income tax
laws in subsequent years. None of the factors under Rev. Proc.
2003-61, supra, weighed against relief with respect to her
community share of the wages reported on her return, and the only
factor weighing against relief with respect to her community
share of the taxable interest and IRA distribution is that she
had knowledge or reason to know of them. Therefore, we conclude
that it is inequitable to hold petitioner liable for her share of
the purported wages of $15,692.50 reported on her return, but
that she remains liable for $361.50 in taxable interest and
$1,090 in IRA distributions.
With respect to petitioner’s community share of the items of
community income reported on Mr. Bennett’s return ($20,027 of
wages, $2,417 of taxable interest, and $6,125 of other income),
the factors weigh as they do for the items on petitioner’s
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011