- 10 -
that petitioner did not significantly benefit from the tax
refund.
Petitioner’s monthly income in 2004 consisted of $1,600 of
her own wages and $250 of Government assistance. Petitioner did
not receive any child support, and Mr. Olivas did not contribute
to the support of the household. Petitioner paid all bills for
the household, which consisted of herself, her three children,
and Mr. Olivas, from her separate bank account. There is no
evidence that petitioner acquired assets or incurred unusual or
extravagant expenses. Petitioner did not have any health or life
insurance. We are convinced that any portion of the rapid refund
loan allocated to petitioner was used to pay for essential living
expenses and the cost of supporting her household at a very
modest level.9 Indeed, respondent conceded in his pretrial
memorandum that “respondent does not believe the small amount of
money involved provided any significant benefit beyond normal
support.”
Petitioner learned of the retirement distributions only when
she was notified by third parties (the Arizona State Retirement
9Cf. Alt v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 306, 314 (2002), affd.
101 Fed. Appx. 34 (6th Cir. 2004), in which the spouse requesting
innocent spouse relief and her husband purchased a home for each
of their four children, purchased a 600-acre riverfront property
upon which a Georgian mansion was being built, purchased a
business for their son, fully paid for their children to attend
undergraduate and graduate schools, and indulged the requesting
spouse’s interest in antiques.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008