- 15 -
that she was aware of her duty to file, having done so in past
years. Petitioner also testified that she had filed joint
returns with her husband during their marriage, though she did
not recall which joint returns she may have signed. We also find
it significant that petitioner never filed a separate return, nor
did she ever object to the filing of joint returns either to her
husband or his accountant.
There was a general understanding between petitioner and her
husband that he would handle the family's financial and business
matters, including the preparation and filing of tax returns.
Petitioner never asked to review the subject returns because she
believed it was not necessary. Petitioner trusted her husband
and relied on his judgment. We believe that her reliance on Mr.
Acquaviva's judgment is indicative of petitioner's intent; in
other words, "She intended the returns to be filed as he chose."
Estate of Campbell v. Commissioner, supra at 13. Based on the
foregoing, we conclude that petitioner intended to file, and did
file, joint returns for each of the 3 taxable years in issue.
B. Constructive Dividends
Petitioner contends that the payments made by Magnum in 1986
and 1987 to, or on behalf of, her husband were repayments of
loans that he made to Magnum. Respondent determined that Magnum
did not have a bona fide debt to Mr. Acquaviva; any payments,
therefore, were dividends to Mr. Acquaviva.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011