- 13 -
2001. When specifically questioned about the refund at trial,
petitioner neither confirmed nor denied that he had received the
refund. Petitioner included his personal checking account number
on the return for direct deposit of the refund. Petitioner
provided no credible evidence to show that Ms. Payton either had
access to or withdrew the refund from this account. Moreover, we
find Ms. Payton’s testimony credible that the refund was
deposited to petitioner’s account alone and that she neither had
access to this account nor did she withdraw the funds in any
other way. The Court is therefore convinced that the substantial
benefit factor weighs against granting relief.
The sixth factor concerns compliance with income tax laws
and, particularly, the good faith efforts of the requesting
spouse in subsequent years. Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec.
4.03(2)(a)(vi), 2003-2 C.B. at 299. With respect to this
inquiry, there is no evidence outside of the year at issue.
Accordingly, we find this factor neutral to our decision.
As to the seventh factor, abuse, petitioner has maintained
from the inception of his case that he is entitled to relief
based solely on the numerous wrongs allegedly done to him by Ms.
Payton including: Mental abuse, physical abuse, extortion,
bribery, voodoo, falsification of police reports, kidnaping,
larceny, and theft. Contrary to petitioner’s statements, Ms.
Payton testified that it was petitioner, not she, who was
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007