- 39 -
position on brief, and we find, that the legal obligation factor
is neutral.
With respect to the significant benefit factor set forth in
section 4.03(2)(a)(v) of Revenue Procedure 2003-61, petitioner
argues that that factor weighs in favor of granting her relief
under section 6015(f). On brief, respondent argues that the
significant benefit factor is neutral.
The notice of determination stated in pertinent part:
Other than usual and customary living expenses there is
no evidence to indicate that you derived a significant
benefit from the failure to report these sources of
income. The Beatty’s did not live extravagantly or
take trips, they didn’t have any investments, life
insurance, savings, or anything else of value to show
for the money earned. When Mrs. Beatty became aware of
the amount of money her husband earned, she couldn’t
understand where the funds went. She then found out
that her husband had a problem with Keno gambling. He
lost their money and then became involved with loan
sharks to fund his addiction. Other than customary
basic living expenses the taxpayer did not derive a
significant benefit from the unpaid federal income
taxes. [Reproduced literally.]
As we understand it, although the Appeals Office found in
the notice of determination that petitioner did not receive a
significant benefit from the failure to pay the unpaid liabili-
ties for the years at issue,10 that office did not conclude that
therefore the significant benefit factor weighed in favor of
granting petitioner relief under section 6015(f). We reject as
10On brief, respondent agrees that petitioner did not
receive a significant benefit from the failure to pay the unpaid
liabilities for the taxable years at issue.
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007