- 38 -
roofing company precluded Mr. Gaskins from conducting business
in his own name. Likewise, Mr. Gaskins used Mrs. Gaskins' name
in running West Pine. However, knowledge of these facts would
not alert Mrs. Gaskins as to any unreported income Mr. Gaskins
received from West Pine.
The evidence is contradictory as to whether and when Mrs.
Gaskins was listed as an officer of West Pine.6 Regardless, Mrs.
Gaskins was not assigned any duties and was not involved in the
operation of West Pine. If she was an officer, she was an
officer in name only, and not charged with any special duty to
inquire because of any office to which she may have been named.
See Bell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-107 (wife was
shareholder and on board of directors, but had no authority);
Carter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1977-322 (wife's only duty as
secretary was to sign stock certificates at her home).
Mrs. Gaskins had signatory authority over the West Pine
checking account. The mere fact of having signatory authority is
insufficient to charge Mrs. Gaskins with reason to know of the
understatement of Mr. Gaskins' income from West Pine. See Porter
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-561. Mrs. Gaskins' name was
being signed to West Pine checks by Mr. Quinn, beginning in
December of 1979, and Mrs. Gaskins knew this from Mr. Gaskins'
paychecks and expense checks that she endorsed. Yet, we do not
believe that had Mrs. Gaskins signed the checks personally she
would have known any more about West Pine's operations and the
diverted receipts, or that further investigation was warranted.
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011