John J. Burke and Vivian Burke - Page 22

            alleging that the tax on an additional understatement of income in the amount               
            of $22,448 is also due to fraud.  This additional understatement of income is               
            based on evidence establishing that it was part and parcel of the overall                   
            diversion of funds to Mr. Burke.  As such, it is part of the overall fraud.                 
            We therefore sustain the increased addition to tax resulting from the                       
            increased deficiency for 1986.                                                              

            Alleged Joint Returns                                                                       

                  The next issue for decision is whether Mrs. Burke is jointly liable for               
            the deficiencies in tax.  This initially depends upon whether Mrs. Burke                    
            tacitly consented to the filing of joint Federal income tax returns for the                 
            years in issue.  If we find that she did, then section 6013(d)(3), which                    
            establishes that spouses who file a joint tax return are jointly and severally              
            liable for any tax that is due on the return, is applicable.                                
                  Mrs. Burke did not personally sign the alleged joint returns at issue.                
            However, this Court has recognized that a joint return is not necessarily                   
            invalid because one spouse did not sign the return.  Estate of Campbell v.                  
            Commissioner, 56 T.C. 1, 12 (1971); Federbush v. Commissioner, 34 T.C. 740,                 
            757 (1960), affd. per curiam 325 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1963); Heim v. Commissioner,               
            27 T.C. 270, 273 (1956), affd. 251 F.2d 44 (8th Cir. 1958).  The issue turns                
            on whether the spouse "intended to file and be bound by the particular return               
            in question."  Shea v. Commissioner, 780 F.2d 561, 567 (6th Cir. 1986), affg.               
            in part, revg. in part, and remanding T.C. Memo. 1984-310; accord Januschke v.              
            Commissioner, 48 T.C. 496, 500 (1967); Helfrich v. Commissioner, 25 T.C. 404,               
            407 (1955).  Once it is established that one spouse did not sign the joint                  
            return, the burden shifts to respondent to produce additional evidence of that              
            spouse's intent.  O'Connor v. Commissioner, 412 F.2d 304, 309 (2d Cir. 1969),               
            affg. in part and revg. in part T.C. Memo. 1967-174; Estate of Krock v.                     
            Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-551.                                                          








Page:  Previous  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011