- 37 -
financial affairs; the presence of expenditures that appear
lavish or unusual when compared to the family's past levels of
income, standard of living, and spending patterns; and the
culpable spouse's evasiveness and deceit concerning the couple's
finances. Price v. Commissioner, 887 F.2d at 965; Stevens v.
Commissioner, 872 F.2d at 1505; Flynn v. Commissioner, 93 T.C.
355, 365-366 (1989).
Mrs. Gaskins has a high school education. She has had no
training or work experience in financial matters. Mrs. Gaskins
deposited Mr. Gaskins' paychecks and many of his expense checks
into her checking account which, for most of the years of their
marriage, was the only account that she was aware that the
Gaskins had. She was responsible for paying the family's bills.
For the years at issue, the Gaskins used a tax return preparer
to prepare their Federal income tax returns.
Involvement with a spouse's business may give rise to a
duty to inquire into the activities of that business. See Shea
v. Commissioner, 780 F.2d 561, 566 (6th Cir. 1986), revg. and
remanding on other grounds T.C. Memo. 1984-310; Dickey v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-478; Shapiro v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1986-142. Mrs. Gaskins knew little about West Pine's
operations; however, she knew that Mr. Gaskins wanted to list
her as an officer of West Pine and to use her name to sign West
Pine's checks. Mr. Gaskins had used Mrs. Gaskins' name to
incorporate the second roofing company and had named her as its
president, because the outstanding tax debts from the first
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011