- 37 -
Rev. Proc. 2000-15 includes the statement that the significant
benefit factor can only favor respondent, this Court has held
that the fact the requesting spouse did not significantly benefit
can weigh in favor of the requesting spouse. This is because
caselaw under former section 6013(e)(1)(D) considered the fact
that the taxpayer did not significantly benefit as a factor in
favor of granting relief to that taxpayer. Ewing v.
Commissioner, 122 T.C. at 45; Ferrarese v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2002-249; see also Mitchell v. Commissioner, 292 F.3d 800,
806 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (cases deciding whether a taxpayer was
entitled to equitable relief under former section 6013(e)(1)(D)
are helpful in deciding whether a taxpayer is entitled to relief
under section 6015(f)), affg. T.C. Memo. 2000-332; Cheshire v.
Commissioner, 282 F.3d at 338 n.29.
Respondent contends that petitioner significantly benefited
from the unpaid 1991 through 1999 tax liabilities. Specifically,
15(...continued)
considered is whether the person seeking relief
significantly benefitted, directly or indirectly, from
the items omitted from gross income. However, normal
support is not a significant ‘benefit’ for purposes of
this determination. Evidence of direct or indirect
benefit may consist of transfers of property, including
transfers which may be received several years after the
year in which the omitted item of income should have
been included in gross income. Thus, for example, if a
person seeking relief receives from his spouse an
inheritance of property or life insurance proceeds
which are traceable to items omitted from gross income
by his spouse, that person will be considered to have
benefitted from those items. * * *
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011