- 36 -
1999, Mr. Butner, who was a sole practitioner, employed four or
five people who were not lawyers in his law practice. Further-
more, Mr. Butner did not withhold any income tax from the wages
that he paid to petitioner during the taxable years at issue.
Respondent contends that those circumstances establish the
inference that
petitioner’s “wages” were nothing more than her spend-
ing allowance, rather than compensation for secretarial
services. The income tax returns for 1994, 1995, 1998
and 1999 show petitioner’s occupation as “HOMEMAKER.”
* * * No income taxes were withheld from petitioner’s
wages. * * * This gave petitioner money to spend.
Petitioner's spending allowance in the form of tax-free
secretarial “wages” constitutes a significant benefit
beyond normal support. This money could have been used
by Mr. Butner to make estimated tax payments, which
would have decreased the amount of self-employment
taxes owed * * *.
While the factual circumstances surrounding Mr. Butner’s
payment of wages to petitioner during the years at issue are
suspicious, we are not persuaded that petitioner received a
significant benefit from filing joint income tax returns with Mr.
Butner for the taxable years 1994, 1995, 1998, and 1999, respec-
tively. Under Revenue Procedure 2000-15, this factor is neutral.
However, based on cases decided under former section 6013(e), we
consider the lack of significant benefit by the taxpayer seeking
relief from joint and several liability as a factor that favors
granting relief under section 6015(f).17
17Ferrarese v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-249.
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007