- 11 -
448; Ewing, 122 T.C. at 48. Those about which the parties agree
are in italics:
Weighs for Relief Neutral Weighs against
Relief
No knowledge Knowledge
Economic hardship No economic hardship
No significant Significant benefit
benefit2
Later compliance with No later compliance
Federal tax laws with Federal tax
laws.
Liability Liability
attributable to attributable to
non-requesting petitioner.
spouse.
Nonrequesting No divorce decree. Petitioner
spouse responsible responsible for tax
for tax under under divorce
divorce decree. decree.
Separated or Still married.
divorced.
Abuse present. No abuse present.
We address each factor that the parties disagree about.
Knowledge: As discussed above, Motsko either knew or had
reason to know that the 1993 and 1996 taxes would not be paid.
This factor weighs against relief.
2 Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03, 2000-1 C.B. at 448, does
not state that the absence of a significant benefit will weigh in
a petitioner’s favor, but only that a significant benefit will
weigh against relief. Nonetheless, we decided in Ewing, 122 T.C.
at 46 (and other cases cited), that the absence of a significant
benefit should be a positive factor for petitioners.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011