- 13 -
(e) Significant benefit. Whether the requesting spouse
received significant benefit (beyond normal support) from the
unpaid income tax liability or item giving rise to the deficiency.
Petitioner credibly testified that she received no gifts or other
benefits beyond normal support from the unpaid tax liability.
While, as respondent posits, Dr. Geaccone made some transfers of
funds to a bank account petitioner controlled, we are satisfied
that these transfers were for the purpose of contributing to the
support of the family as a whole and did not constitute a benefit
beyond normal support to petitioner. This factor weighs in favor
of petitioner.
(f) Compliance with income tax laws. Whether the requesting
spouse has made a good faith effort to comply with income tax laws
in the taxable years following the taxable year to which the
request for relief relates. The record is devoid of any reference
to petitioner’s compliance with the income tax laws in years
subsequent to 2001. Therefore, this factor is neutral.
To conclude, we hold that respondent did not abuse his
discretion in denying petitioner innocent spouse relief under
section 66(c) for the determined deficiency. However, to require
petitioner to remain liable for unpaid tax in excess of $10,141
($48,495, the tax on petitioner’s income including her prorated
share of Dr. Geaccone’s income, less $38,354, the amount of
petitioner’s withholding credits) would be inequitable. Yet this
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007