- 17 -
petitioner claims that “Kathleen Murphy, petitioners ex wife”
executed the asset purchase agreement. In another portion of his
brief, he claims that the asset purchase agreement was signed
either by Ms. Murphy or her sister. Petitioner’s stories
concerning the ownership of Pieces of Eight are so conflicting as
to be unworthy of belief,6 and we reject them. Conti v.
Commissioner, 39 F.3d 658, 664 (6th Cir. 1994), affg. and
remanding 99 T.C. 370 (1992) and T.C. Memo. 1992-616. On the
basis of the record in the instant case, we conclude that
petitioner was a coowner of Pieces of Eight. We accordingly
sustain respondent’s determination of the deficiency in income
tax for 1987.7
6
This brings to mind a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Peter
Carr, dated Aug. 19, 1785, which notes that once a lie is told,
it is much easier to do it again and again "till at length it
becomes habitual."
7
Moreover, even if Ms. Murphy had been the sole owner of
Pieces of Eight, petitioner would still be liable for the
deficiency determined by respondent resulting from the failure to
report the income of Pieces of Eight for 1987. As an
unincorporated business, the income of Pieces of Eight was
reportable on the joint return petitioner and Ms. Murphy filed
for 1987. Liability for the tax on the aggregate income of a
husband and wife is joint and several, sec. 6013(d)(3), and,
therefore, petitioner would be liable for the tax attributable to
the income of Pieces of Eight whether or not he was one of its
owners, Davenport v. Commissioner, 48 T.C. 921, 926 (1967); sec.
1.6013-4(b), Income Tax Regs.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011