the circumstances of the person claiming innocent spouse relief
at the time of signing the return or other relevant document
could be expected to know that the tax liability was erroneous or
that further investigation was warranted. Shea v. Commissioner,
780 F.2d 561, 566 (6th Cir. 1986), affg. in part, revg. in part
and remanding T.C. Memo. 1984-310; Sanders v. United States, 509
F.2d 162, 166-167 (5th Cir. 1975); Bokum v. Commissioner, supra
at 148; Terzian v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 1164, 1170 (1979).
Whether a reasonable person under the circumstances of the
taxpayer at the time of signing the return or other relevant
document could be expected to know of a substantial
understatement is a question of fact. Clevenger v. Commissioner,
826 F.2d 1379 (4th Cir. 1987), affg. T.C. Memo. 1986-149.
Courts have considered a variety of factors in deciding whether a
taxpayer had reason to know of a substantial understatement.
These factors may also give a taxpayer a duty to inquire as to
the existence of an understatement which, if not satisfied, may
lead to the conclusion that the taxpayer had reason to know of
the understatement. Pettinato v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-
85. No single factor controls. Id. Accordingly, we consider
the following factors in deciding whether petitioner had reason
to know of or a duty to inquire with respect to the
understatements of income tax at issue here.
(i) Petitioner's level of education
In the instant case, petitioner is a college graduate. An
individual with petitioner's education and experience can
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011