- 14 -
the particular return in question." Shea v. Commissioner, 780
F.2d 561, 567 (6th Cir. 1986), affg. in part, revg. in part, and
remanding T.C. Memo. 1984-310; Januschke v. Commissioner, supra
at 500. Whether petitioner intended to file a joint return is a
question of fact. O'Connor v. Commissioner, 412 F.2d 304, 309
(2d Cir. 1969), affg. in part and revg. in part on another issue
T.C. Memo. 1967-174. In the instant case, petitioner did not
sign the returns; the burden therefore is on respondent to
produce evidence of petitioner's intent to file a joint return
with Mr. Acquaviva. Id.
Petitioner knew that her husband's longtime accountant, Mr.
Defalco, prepared the subject returns, and she was confident in
his abilities. Petitioner designated Mr. Defalco to represent
her during the audit of the 1986 and 1987 returns. Thus, she had
the opportunity to raise an objection to the joint filing of the
returns with the examining agent at the audit level but chose not
to do so. Cf. Estate of Campbell v. Commissioner, supra at 14.
Income from petitioner's dress shop was reported on Schedule
C of the 1985 return. Gain from the sale of the real property
used by her dress shop, which she held as a joint owner with her
husband, was included on the 1986 return. Although not
conclusive, the inclusion of a spouse's income on a return has
been regarded as a factor supporting the conclusion that the
particular return in question was intended as a joint return.
Federbush v. Commissioner, supra at 756. Petitioner testified
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011