- 38 -
equitable considerations in determining whether to grant immunity
from joint and several tax liability.
One of the equitable considerations is "Whether the failure
to report correctly tax liability results from `concealment,
overreaching, or any other wrongdoing' on the part of the
`guilty’ spouse". Hayman v. Commissioner, 992 F.2d at 1262
(quoting McCoy v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. at 735). To the same
effect, see Bokum v. Commissioner, 992 F.2d at 1134-1135.
In considering whether Sheldon understood what he was doing
in taking the State Coal royalty deduction, we note the
following: (1) From at least 1967 through 1980, Sheldon used one
firm to prepare his tax returns; the tax returns with the State
Coal royalty deductions were prepared by a different firm. (2)
From 1974 through 1980, Sheldon showed the tax returns to Nancy
and had her sign them; the first tax return with the State Coal
royalty deduction was not shown to Nancy before it was filed, and
was not signed by Nancy. (3) As we pointed out supra, under B.
Knowledge or Reason to Know, as to most business and major
investment matters, Sheldon neither hid nor volunteered what was
happening, but clearly he hid the State Coal investment and its
aftermath; thus, as to this item there was a change in Sheldon's
approach to disclosure to Nancy. The foregoing leads us to
conclude that Sheldon was a "guilty" spouse and there was
concealment of the truth from Nancy.
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011