- 31 -
The lack of knowledge, as contemplated by section
6013(e)(1)(C), is not a mere lack of understanding of the tax
consequences of a deduction or credit. Hayman v. Commissioner,
992 F.2d at 1261; Stevens v. Commissioner, 872 F.2d at 1505 n.8;
Purcell v. Commissioner, 826 F.2d at 474, 86 T.C. at 237-238;
McCoy v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 732, 734 (1972).
We first consider whether Nancy knew of the State Coal
investment. Nancy's testimony on this point is clear and
credible. The surrounding circumstances are consistent with her
testimony. Sheldon wrote the checks to pay for the State Coal
investment on his individual checking accounts. It was Sheldon's
practice, both before and during his marriage to Nancy, to keep
his business and investment activities separate from his home
life. The witness who dealt with Sheldon in the State Coal
matter testified that, although he had met Nancy several times,
he never mentioned State Coal to Nancy, and he never observed
anyone else referring to State Coal in Nancy's presence. Nancy's
running of the Silverman household with money that Sheldon gave
to her for this purpose is not inconsistent with Nancy's lack of
knowledge about State Coal. Nancy's service as custodian or
trustee for the children's bank accounts or A.T.& T. stock
account (see supra table 7) is not at all indicative of whether
Nancy knew of State Coal by the time the 1981 tax return was
signed. Petitioners' burden on this limited point is merely to
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011