- 70 -
sake of completeness, a few comments are in order with respect to
the remaining disputed element.
Section 6015(b)(1)(D) demands that, taking into account all
facts and circumstances, it be inequitable to hold the requesting
spouse liable for the deficiency. Here, however, the particulars
of petitioners’ situation recounted above do not persuade the
Court that the necessary inequities would ensue from joint
liability. Petitioners are still married and residing together,
the record documents extensive involvement by Mrs. Richardson in
the HGAMC and HGRCT arrangement, and both petitioners benefited
jointly from the improvements in their financial status
engendered by avoiding taxation on Mr. Richardson’s personal
service income and deducting personal expenses (including
expenditures related to their residence, vehicles, healthcare,
etc.) through HGAMC.
In this connection, petitioners ask us to hold in
Mrs. Richardson’s favor because she did not benefit beyond normal
support, directly or indirectly, from the alleged understatement.
The record, however, is bereft of evidence to support this
contention. The documents chronicle the financial engineering
just described, and petitioners have not offered any evidence
pertaining to their lifestyle before or after implementation of
the Aegis scheme to show that no attendant perks were realized
thereby. Furthermore, all indications are that such attendant
benefits would have been shared equally between the spouses.
Page: Previous 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011