- 12 -
requesting spouse of the item giving rise to the deficiency is a
strong factor weighing against relief. This strong factor may be
overcome only if the factors in favor of equitable relief are
particularly compelling. We conclude that they are not.
As to the fourth factor, the Judgment of Dissolution of
Marriage states that petitioner “shall pay * * * and hold [Ms.
Payton] harmless from the payment of * * * any federal, state,
and local tax obligations * * * for the joint return for the tax
year 2001.” Petitioner asks this Court to disregard this
language, however, on the grounds that “there is no evidence that
[he] entered in the correct numbers into Turbo Tax” and that “he
even signed the return.” First, we fail to see how petitioner’s
arguments are relevant to the obligation imposed on him by the
Judgment. Moreover, petitioner’s statements contradict his
admission that he prepared and signed the return at issue.
Second, under Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 4.03 (2)(a)(iv), if a
divorce decree or judgment places an obligation to pay taxes on
the requesting spouse, then that fact weighs against granting him
relief. Here, the Judgment specifically designates
responsibility for any deficiency for the couple’s 2001 Federal
income tax return to petitioner, and we find that this factor
strongly favors denying petitioner relief.
As to the fifth factor, petitioner received a substantial
benefit when he received a refund in the amount of $8,861 for
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007