- 17 -
Also, petitioner had access to the joint accounts where the
proceeds of the distribution were deposited. Thus, petitioner
knew or had reason to know of the item which gave rise to the
taxable year 2001 deficiency and the accuracy-related penalty.
This factor favors denying relief to petitioner.
4. Nonrequesting Spouse’s Legal Obligation
As previously noted, petitioner and Mr. Glenn’s judgment for
dissolution of marriage provided:
That each party shall be responsible for the payment of all
credit card bills and all other debts in his or her name
alone. Each shall hold the other harmless and indemnify the
other from the respective indebtedness.
However, the judgment for dissolution of marriage did not address
payment of joint liabilities.
Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 4.03(2)(a)(iv), indicates that if
Mr. Glenn had a legal obligation under the judgment for
dissolution of marriage to pay the tax liabilities, then that
fact would weigh in favor of granting relief to petitioner.
Likewise, if the judgment for dissolution of marriage had placed
the obligation to pay the taxes on petitioner, then that fact
would weigh against granting relief to her as indicated in Rev.
Proc. 2003-61, sec. 4.03(2)(a)(iv). In the present case, the
judgment for dissolution of marriage is silent as to each party’s
obligation to pay taxes. Therefore, we will assume each party is
liable for 50 percent of the liabilities. Thus, this is a
neutral factor.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011