Teresa J. Fox - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
          is not knowledge of the tax consequences of a transaction but of            
          the transaction itself), affg. 94 T.C. 126 (1990); Cheshire v.              
          Commissioner, 115 T.C. 183, 197 (2000) (knowledge of her                    
          husband’s pension withdrawal was actual knowledge for purposes of           
          section 6015 relief even though the taxpayer did not know how the           
          withdrawal was taxed), affd. 282 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2002);                  
          Purcell v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 228, 237- 238 (1986), affd. 826            
          F.2d 470 (6th Cir. 1987).  The item giving rise to the deficiency           
          was the $21,992 distribution made from Mr. Shattun’s section                
          401(k) account.  This factor strongly favors respondent.                    
               4.   Whether the Nonrequesting Spouse Has a Legal Obligation           
                    To Pay the Taxes Due Pursuant to a Divorce Decree                 
               Petitioner and Mr. Shattun’s divorce decree is silent on               
          their Federal income tax liability.  This factor is neutral.  See           
          Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 137, 149 (2003); Magee v.              
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-263; Ellison v. Commissioner, T.C.            
          Memo. 2004-57 n.12.                                                         
               5.   Whether the Requesting Spouse Received a Significant              
                    Benefit Beyond Normal Support From the Item Giving Rise           
                    to the Deficiency                                                 
               Petitioner contended at the administrative stage and at                
          trial that Mr. Shattun received all of the benefit from the                 
          $21,992 distribution and the refund.  Mr. Shattun did not                   
          testify, but he contended at the administrative stage that                  
          petitioner benefited from the $21,992 and the refund.                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011