- 14 -
not be granted in any particular case. Rather, all factors will
be considered and weighed appropriately. The list is not
intended to be exhaustive.” Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03,
2000-1 C.B. at 448.
We conclude from this that, in choosing an interpretation of
the knowledge factor that was unexplained, “unpersuasive” (as we
called it in Rosenthal), and seemingly contrary to the
Commissioner’s own interest in having taxpayers amend their
returns when they discover their spouses’ misreporting, the
Commissioner was acting arbitrarily and so abused his discretion.
We therefore find that the knowledge factor in this case weighs
in favor of relief, not against it.
B. Significant Benefit
The second contested factor is whether David ”significantly
benefited (beyond normal support) from the unpaid liability or
items giving rise to the deficiency.” Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec.
4.03(2)(c), 2000-1 C.B. at 448-49. A spouse’s benefit exceeds
"normal support" when the money in question was used to pay for a
child’s education, Jonson, 118 T.C. at 119-20, or special
purchases for the couple or their children, Alt v. Commissioner,
119 T.C. 306, 314 (2002), affd. 101 Fed. Appx. 34 (6th Cir.
2004), or for unusually frequent travel, Barranco v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-18 (lifestyle as a whole, which
included several European vacations, was a significant benefit).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007