- 39 -
alimony. The condominium had been jointly owned by petitioner
and Levy since 1980 and had been their marital home. It
constituted the only significant asset listed in the marital
settlement agreement. Petitioner thus did not significantly
benefit from the unpaid 1991 through 1999 tax liabilities by
receiving the Key Biscayne condominium under the marital
settlement agreement. Cf. Stiteler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1995-279 (holding that taxpayer significantly benefited from tax
understatements due to her receipt of significant cash and notes
under separation agreement, where cash and notes were in addition
to proceeds from sale of family residence and spousal support),
affd. 108 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 1997).
With respect to the college tuition payments, however,
matters are different. As previously discussed, normal support
is not a significant benefit and is measured by the circumstances
of the parties. See Estate of Krock v. Commissioner, supra. In
determining whether the requesting spouse significantly benefited
from the unpaid tax liabilities, we consider whether the
requesting spouse and the nonrequesting spouse were able to make
expenditures in the taxable years in question that they would not
have been able to make. See Alt v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 306,
314-15 (2002); Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 119-120
(2002); Knorr v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-212; Monsour v.
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