- 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