- 27 - after the year of the * * * [relevant return]”. Sec. 1.6015- 2(d), Income Tax Regs. Normal support is measured by the circumstances of the particular parties. Estate of Krock v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 672, 678-679 (1989); Levy v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-92. Respondent notes that from 1999 to 2005, the Banderases or petitioner sold several parcels of real property and received approximately $8,000 to $10,000 on each of the three transactions. Petitioner testified that the proceeds were used primarily to pay living and moving expenses, to make a downpayment on a new residence, and to contribute to the cost of a daughter’s wedding. In 2004, petitioner received a $60,000 distribution from her individual retirement account. Petitioner also acknowledged making a loan of conservatively at least $18,000 during 2004 to a friend whose whereabouts were unknown at the time of trial. In the unique circumstances of this case, particularly the fact that the majority of the Banderases’ assets were tied up in the bankruptcy litigation, the described uses of the relatively modest proceeds from the property transactions would not generally appear to rise to the level of excess benefit. The wedding costs, however, give us pause. Likewise, the $18,000 loan and the failure to apply any of the retirement account distribution to outstanding taxes could signal a more tellingPage: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007