- 21 -
lieved of her joint liability simply because she didn’t
know the tax laws and their impact on her.
The taxpayer had complete awareness of the balances due
when the returns were filed. She was well aware that
the family did not have the funds to pay the tax. She
did not have a reasonable belief that the taxes would
be paid. It has been established that the taxpayer’s
do not qualify for economic hardship. The representa-
tive had made reference to a substantial gambling debt
that she insists causes economic hardship. However she
has failed to submit documentation of such an expense.
The taxpayers still reside together as a married cou-
ple. Abuse is not a factor. The taxpayer claims that
the level of duress caused by this situation merits
innocent spouse relief. This is a misnomer as ex-
plained. The cumulative effect of the development of
these equitable relief elements clearly demonstrates
that the taxpayer does not qualify for innocent spouse
relief under the provisions of IRC Section 6015(f).
CONCLUSION
Since the taxpayer will not execute a form 870-IS and
has expressed her intention to litigate this matter
there remains no alternative but to recommend that a
statutory notice of claim disallowance be issued.
[Reproduced literally.]
On December 29, 2004, petitioner and Mr. Beatty refinanced
the mortgage loan on the house in which they resided. Around
January 4, 2005, petitioner and Mr. Beatty used funds that they
received from that refinancing to make a $151,423.56 payment to
the IRS with respect to the unpaid liabilities for the taxable
years 1998 and 1999. After the refinancing of the mortgage loan
on their house, petitioner and Mr. Beatty had no equity in that
house and were required to make a monthly mortgage loan payment
of $3,400.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007