Janet H. Krasner, Petitioner, and Paul Krasner , Intervenor - Page 46

                                       - 46 -                                         
               In support of her position that the knowledge or reason to             
          know element is present in the instant case, petitioner argues:             
               Intervenor [Mr. Krasner], who was solely and fully                     
               responsible for making adequate withholdings from his                  
               professional corporation “learned” in late 1998 that he                
               had underwithheld, and withheld this information from                  
               Petitioner until the return for 1998 was prepared in                   
               1999.  Intervenor had sole authority and ability to                    
               make the necessary transfers and deposits into the                     
               Krasners’ joint personal checking account from his                     
               business accounts.  In addition, from late 1998 up                     
               until the due date of the tax return in question,                      
               Intervenor was experiencing over a fifty percent (50%)                 
               increase in his income.  The court in Levy v. Commis-                  
               sioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-92 held in granting innocent                   
               spouse relief that where a party “...earned substantial                
               income from which he had adequate funds to pay the                     
               reported...balance due amounts” provided a basis for                   
               Petitioner’s expectation that the taxes would be paid                  
               in full.  It is not credible to have Intervenor on the                 
               one hand control the flow of funds into the Krasners’                  
               account with which to pay the taxes, and on the other                  
               have him instruct Petitioner to set aside money to pay                 
               the outstanding delinquent taxes, with no access to                    
               funds, with which to do so.  Therefore, this factor                    
               should weigh positively in favor of granting the relief                
               requested by Petitioner.  [Reproduced literally.]                      
               We turn first to petitioner’s reliance on Levy v. Commis-              
          sioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-92.  Levy is materially distinguishable             
          from the instant case, and petitioner’s reliance on that case to            
          support her position with respect to the knowledge or reason to             
          know element is misplaced.  In Levy, the (1) nonrequesting spouse           
          (a) did not discuss with the requesting spouse the preparation              
          and filing of the tax return in question or the payment of the              
          tax shown due in that return, (b) exercised complete control over           
          the household expenditures and the money that the requesting                






Page:  Previous  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011