Respondent relies primarily on petitioners' long history of joint filing
and Mrs. Burke's reliance on her husband to handle the couple's financial
affairs. Cf. Estate of Campbell v. Commissioner, supra at 13; Federbush v.
Commissioner, supra at 756-757. Indeed, Mrs. Burke concedes on brief that
[Mr.] Burke was responsible for the preparation of any necessary
tax returns, and that Vivian was not involved in the preparation
process; that Vivian signed and consented to the filing of the
Prior Year Returns; and that Vivian signed and consented to the
filing of Subsequent Year Returns. [Fn. ref. omitted.]
However, Mrs. Burke contends, and we agree, that a pattern of joint return
filing is only one factor to consider in reaching a decision concerning her
intent. Lomanno v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-426.
Mrs. Burke argues that the outcome in this case is controlled by our
decision in Helfrich v. Commissioner, supra. In Helfrich v. Commissioner, 25
T.C. at 407, we held that the taxpayer did not have the requisite intent to
file a joint return with her spouse because
The signature * * * on the return is not hers. Furthermore, she
did not authorize anyone to sign her name to the return; she did
not know the return had been filed; she did not participate in its
preparation; and the first time she saw it was in the collector's
office * * *
Mrs. Burke was not aware that her husband filed returns for the years in
issue on March 29, 1991, and had she been asked to sign these returns or
consent to joint filing status, she would have refused. Numerous reasons
existed for Mrs. Burke not to consent to the filing of joint returns. Mrs.
Burke was not personally required to file any returns for the years at issue.
The years at issue were turbulent ones for petitioners. Mr. Burke was a heavy
gambler, and he was abusing cocaine. Mrs. Burke knew that Mr. Burke had been
indicted for embezzlement during 1987, that he had pleaded guilty to Grand
Larceny 4, a felony in New York, and that U.S. Life had obtained a default
judgment against him for the premiums he diverted. The returns in question
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011