- 3 -
income and fraud on the part of the petitioner husbands for each
year.1 Rule 34(b)(4). On July 5, 1991, respondent filed her
respective answers denying petitioners' allegations, and making
affirmative allegations in support of the fraud issues as to
which respondent had the burden of proof.
By notice of trial setting, dated April 15, 1992, the cases
were calendared for trial during the trial session in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, commencing on September 21, 1992.
Attached to that notice of trial setting was the Court's Standing
Pre-Trial Order. On August 24, 1992, respondent filed unopposed
motions for continuance to permit petitioners to have a second
opportunity to resolve their cases with respondent's Appeals
Office without the necessity of trial. The Court granted those
motions. Attorney Riley failed to provide the Appeals officer
with the financial information or other documents to support
petitioners' claims, including any innocent spouse claims. The
Appeals officer made repeated and unsuccessful attempts to
contact Attorney Riley about the cases.
1 However, in the statement of facts in support of the
assignments of error, the petitions asserted that each petitioner
wife was an innocent spouse under section 6013(e). Rule
34(b)(5). Had the petitions clearly raised innocent spouse
claims, Attorney Riley would have had a conflict of interest in
representing both petitioner husbands and petitioner wives.
Innocent spouse status requires the alleged innocent spouse to
establish, among other things, that the understatement of tax is
attributable to grossly erroneous items of the culpable spouse.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011