- 17 -
Income Tax Regs.
The regulation’s identification of “significant benefit” as
a relevant factor derives from the caselaw of old section
6013(e)(1)(C), whose language was carried over nearly intact to
current section 6015(b)(1)(D). Compare sec. 6013(e)(1)(C),
repealed by Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act
of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 3201(a), 112 Stat. 734, with sec.
6015(b)(1)(D); see also Butler, 114 T.C. at 283. And our caselaw
has over time, and under both old and new sections, most heavily
weighted not only whether the requesting spouse has received a
significant benefit from the understatement but also whether the
failure to report the correct tax liability resulted from the
concealment, overreaching, or any other wrongdoing on the part of
the other spouse. See, e.g., Hayman v. Commissioner, 992 F.2d
1256, 1262 (2nd Cir. 1993), affg. T.C. Memo. 1992-228; Jonson,
118 T.C. at 119.
In deciding whether taxpayers have received a significant
benefit from omitted income, we have looked to see whether money
was used to pay for children’s education, Jonson, 118 T.C. at
120, special purchases for either themselves or their children,
Alt v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 306, 314 (2002), affd. 101 Fed.
Appx. 34 (6th Cir. 2004), or frequent travel, Barranco, T.C.
Memo. 2003-18. Normal support is not a significant benefit.
Jonson, 118 T.C. at 119.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011