- 40 -
make timely payments on many of their financial obligations and
their efforts to avert foreclosure by their creditors. Nothing
in the Gaskins' spending habits and lifestyle would have aroused
Mrs. Gaskins' suspicions. She was living at or below the poverty
level.
Perceived evasiveness of the culpable spouse may trigger a
duty to inquire. Stevens v. Commissioner, 872 F. 2d at 1505;
Park v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-252, affd. 25 F.3d 1289
(5th Cir. 1994). Good communication between the spouses may
support a finding that the taxpayer was aware of the
understatement. Hayman v. Commissioner, 992 F.2d 1256, 1262-1263
(2d Cir. 1993), affg. T.C. Memo. 1992-228.This assumes that a
nonevasive spouse is more likely than an evasive spouse to
communicate-relevant knowledge to his or her spouse. Conversely,
a taxpayer who is unaware of being misled by the other spouse
may not have reason to know of the understatement or a duty to
inquire as to the possibility of an understatement. Guth v.
Commissioner, 897 F.2d at 444.
Mrs. Gaskins believed Mr. Gaskins to be trustworthy. In our
view, Mr. Gaskins, while not evasive, just did not share
information about his business activities with Mrs. Gaskins.
Mrs. Gaskins was unaware of Mr. Gaskins' individual tax debts
from earlier years, learned of the first roofing company's
problems only when Mr. Gaskins used her name to incorporate the
second roofing company, and learned of West Pine's employment
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011