Street properties or of the sale of those properties on
December 30, 1986. The only reference to the properties in
petitioner's post-trial briefs is the following objection
to one of respondent's proposed findings of fact:
[The] Notice of deficiency issued to
Petitioners on March 19, 1990 does not take
into consideration that Petitioner-Wife had
no ownership interest in the Fitzwater Street
property and that petitioner-Husband did not
receive any actual cash on December 30, 1986
and after deducting the cost for the property,
husband only received $11,700 which was his
half of the profit with his partner.
We cannot accept petitioner's denial of "involvement
in purchasing or any aspect of" the Fitzwater Street
properties to mean that she did not know or have reason
to know of the gain from the sale of those properties on
December 30, 1986. On that basis alone, we find that
petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof under section
6013(e)(1)(C). Furthermore, petitioner's testimony that
she relied on her husband concerning the purchase and sale
of real property is not sufficient to satisfy the lack of
knowledge requirement of section 6013(e)(1)(C). The
innocent spouse exemption was not intended to protect a
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011