Russell Whiting Packer - Page 13

                                       - 12 -                                         
              5.   Significant Benefit                                                
              Where the requesting spouse significantly benefited (beyond             
         normal support) from the item giving rise to the deficiency, this            
         is a factor against granting equitable relief.  Id. sec.                     
         4.03(a)(v), 2003-2 C.B. at 299; see sec. 1.6015-2(d), Proced. &              
         Admin. Regs.                                                                 
              Petitioner testified that Ms. Valentine used about $1,500 of            
         the distribution to pay off his truck, and that she also used the            
         distribution, in an unknown amount, to pay “a couple other                   
         things” for petitioner.  Petitioner further testified that he                
         subsequently withdrew $3,000 from his thrift savings plan to                 
         repay Ms. Valentine.  Pursuant to the Decree of Dissolution of               
         Marriage, section 6h, Separate Debt, petitioner is responsible               
         for a debt in the amount of $14,000, described as “spouse paid               
         debts by borrowing from her 401K/ Truck Loan, taxes, Orange Tree             
         Resort Time Share”.                                                          
              The facts and circumstances tend to suggest that petitioner             
         did not receive any significant benefits from the distribution,              
         because he has either repaid or is obligated to repay the funds              
         that he received from the distribution.  Nevertheless, it remains            
         unclear how much petitioner initially received from the                      
         distribution and whether he has repaid or will actually repay all            
         the funds that he received from the distribution.  The Court                 
         concludes that this is a neutral factor.                                     

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011