- 20 -
7. Significant Benefit
Respondent contends that petitioner received benefits from
the proceeds of Mr. Glaze’s wage income received from Mayflower
in the form of payment of joint household expenses.
Petitioner admitted at trial that she and Mr. Glaze were
personally liable for the household expenses which were paid by
the moneys received by Mr. Glaze as wage income from Mayflower.
Petitioner also testified at trial that during 1995 she received
gifts from Mr. Glaze, one of which was $500 that she used as a
downpayment for the purchase of a 1984 Toyota Corolla.
Therefore, we find that petitioner did benefit from the
unreported wage income received by Mr. Glaze from Mayflower.
8. Noncompliance With Federal Income Tax Laws
There is no evidence in the record as to this factor.
Therefore, we consider this factor neutral.
9. Conclusion
The factors that weigh against granting relief to petitioner
outweigh those factors favoring relief. Therefore, under these
facts and circumstances, we hold that respondent did not abuse
his discretion in denying equitable relief to petitioner under
section 6015(f).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011