- 22 -
from year to year, and thus experience some years with large
taxes or others with no tax”).
Accordingly, we hold that petitioner did not have reason to
know that the London straddle deduction was illegitimate,
nor did she have a duty to inquire into the presence of the
deduction on the 1983 income tax return.
2. Section 6015(b)(1)(D): Inequity
We take into account all the facts and circumstances in
deciding whether it is inequitable to hold the relief-seeking
spouse liable for a deficiency. Sec. 6015(b)(1)(D). Because
this requirement is similar to the requirement of former section
6013(e)(1)(D), cases interpreting that former section such as
Erdahl v. Commissioner, 930 F.2d 585 (8th Cir. 1991), remain
instructive to our analysis. Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C.
276, 283 (2000). The material factors most often cited and
considered are whether there has been a significant benefit to
the spouse claiming relief and whether the failure to report the
correct tax liability on the joint tax return results from
concealment, overreaching, or any other wrongdoing on the part of
the other spouse. Alt v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. at 314; Jonson
v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. at 119. Normal support is not
considered a significant benefit. Jonson v. Commissioner, supra
at 114.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011