- 27 -
Petitioner and Mr. Abelein met Hoyt representatives, toured the
Hoyt ranches, received and read various promotional and
informational materials from the Hoyt partnerships, became
partners by signing the subscription agreements, attended Hoyt
partnership meetings, paid Hoyt bills, made phone calls to the
Hoyt organization, and reviewed and signed income tax returns
prepared by the Hoyt organization. Additionally, petitioner
admitted that she and Mr. Abelein agreed they should invest in
the Hoyt partnership. Regardless of whether Mr. Abelein proposed
the DGE investment to petitioner and at times petitioner simply
complied with Mr. Abelein’s requests out of lack of interest in
business matters, petitioner ultimately agreed to invest in the
partnership, invested jointly with Mr. Abelein, and actively
participated in the investment. This is sufficient for us to
find that the erroneous items giving rise to the understatement
of tax are attributable to both petitioner and Mr. Abelein.
Capehart v. Commissioner, supra; Bartak v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2004-83; Ellison v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-57; see
also Mora v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 279, 290 (2001); Doyel v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-35.
We conclude that petitioner has failed to prove that the
erroneous items giving rise to the understatement of tax are Mr.
Abelein’s alone. Because petitioner’s failure to satisfy the
requirement of subparagraph (B) of section 6015(b)(1) is
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011