Janice L. Morris - Page 39

                                       - 39 -                                         
          cantly improved during those years.  Petitioner's family expendi-           
          tures during the years at issue were not lavish compared to her             
          standard of living during the years prior to those years.30                 
          Although petitioner and Mr. Morris made two large expenditures              
          during 1987, viz., paying off the $17,560.77 mortgage on their              
          house and paying $20,000 toward the purchase of the Illinois                
          land, the source of the funds used to make those expenditures was           
          the $40,000 bonus that Mr. Morris received during 1987.31                   
               Based on our examination of the entire record in this case,            
          we are persuaded, and we find, that a reasonably prudent person,            
          under the circumstances of petitioner, could not have been                  
          expected to know at the time she signed each of the joint returns           
          in question that each such return contained a substantial under-            
          statement attributable to the unreported embezzlement income or             

          30  We note that Mr. Morris began embezzling funds from John                
          Kenny Company several years prior to the years at issue, and                
          there is no reason to believe that petitioner's standard of                 
          living improved during the years at issue as a result of the                
          embezzled funds.                                                            
          31  Respondent further contends, and petitioner concedes, that              
          Mr. Morris transferred to petitioner ownership of a life insur-             
          ance policy that had a cash value of $15,000.  Apparently, it is            
          respondent's view that that transfer should have caused peti-               
          tioner to investigate further whether the joint returns in                  
          question contained substantial understatements.  We disagree.  It           
          is unclear from the record when Mr. Morris transferred ownership            
          of that policy to petitioner.  Nor does the record disclose the             
          source of the premium payments on that policy.  Petitioner                  
          testified that during the years at issue she paid the premiums              
          for a life insurance policy with funds in the joint checking                
          and/or savings accounts, but it is not clear from the record                
          whether those premiums were for the policy, ownership of which              
          Mr. Morris transferred to her.                                              




Page:  Previous  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011