- 32 -
transfer.11 Nor have petitioners shown the value of the
disqualified assets. Therefore, we conclude that Lois Etkin has
failed to satisfy the sixth threshold requirement of Rev. Proc.
2000-15, sec. 4.01 and thus does not qualify for equitable relief
under section 6015(f). Because we decided that Lois Etkin
received a transfer of disqualified assets from Davis Etkin, we
conclude that Lois Etkin does not meet all seven of the threshold
conditions of Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.01.12
In addition, we find adequate support in the record to
sustain the Appeals officer’s determination that Lois Etkin, when
signing the returns, should have known that the tax for the years
in question would not be paid. Lois Etkin possessed sufficient
knowledge and education to understand that she was signing a joint
income tax return showing a balance due for the year in question.
She simply relied on Davis Etkin’s assertions that he would pay
11In Ohrman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-301, there was
a dispute as to who bears the burden of proving that the taxpayer
did or did not receive a transfer of disqualified assets. The
Court in Ohrman refrained from resolving the dispute because “the
preponderance of the evidence establishes that the principal
purpose of the transfer was the avoidance of tax.” We are also
convinced that the preponderance of the evidence resolves the
issue in this case and therefore do not need to determine who has
the burden of proof.
12Since we conclude that the transfer of assets had a
principal purpose of avoiding tax, and therefore Lois Etkin fails
to satisfy one of the threshold conditions resulting in her
disqualification from equitable relief, it is unnecessary for us
to consider respondent’s contention that the transfer was part of
a fraudulent scheme by petitioners.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011