were filed long after their due dates, at which time the Burkes were
experiencing severe marital problems.
Respondent relies on Estate of Campbell v. Commissioner, supra, in
support of her contention that Mrs. Burke tacitly consented to the filing of
the returns for the taxable years in issue. In that case, this Court
determined that the taxpayer, whose signature did not appear on the return in
question, nevertheless intended her return to be a joint return. Estate of
Campbell v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. at 12. We based our conclusion on the fact
that the taxpayers "customarily" filed joint returns, and Mrs. Campbell did
not examine her husband's preparation of the returns. Rather, she simply
signed the returns after he completed them. Id. at 12-13. Since her
signature on prior and subsequent tax returns appeared to have been little
more than a "formal ritual", we concluded that the absence of Mrs. Campbell's
signature was not of "overriding importance". Id. at 13. Moreover, the Court
noted:
Here, it has not even been suggested that * * * [the taxpayer]
refused to sign the 1964 return. Indeed, * * * [the taxpayer] has
offered no evidence whatever of a reason of any kind for not
filing a joint return in 1964. Far from suggesting marital
difficulties, the record indicates that after 1964 the spouses
continued to live together, filing joint returns and enjoying the
benefits of their economic community until Mr. Campbell's death in
1967. [Id. at 13-14; citations omitted].
We find Estate of Campbell v. Commissioner, supra, to be clearly
distinguishable from the case at hand. Mrs. Campbell was fully aware that the
tax return at issue had been filed as a joint return. She was also involved
in the audit process. Thus, she had the opportunity to raise an objection to
the joint filing of the return, but chose not to. Id. at 14. Consequently,
the Court considered her subsequent effort to discredit the return to be
merely an "afterthought". Id. By contrast, Mrs. Burke was not involved in
the audit process leading up to the issuance of the notice of deficiency. She
was unaware that the IRS was seeking to hold her liable for any taxes relating
to the years at issue until she and Mr. Burke met with attorney Michael N.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011