- 5 - evasiveness or deceit." Bliss v. Commissioner, 59 F.3d 374, 379 (2d Cir. 1995), affg. T.C. Memo. 1993-390. We feel somewhat constrained in our findings, because, in addition to stating that it would be unconscionable to hold Mrs. Sympson liable, the Court of Appeals commented on some of the evidence which would bear on our analysis. For instance, we would ordinarily have given weight to the Sympsons' increasing wealth and expenditures during the years in issue in contrast to the amounts reported on the income tax returns. From 1982 through 1987, the Sympsons reported taxable income as follows: Year Amount 1982 ($22,561) 1983 32,266 1984 25,111 1985 -0- 1986 -0- 1987 -0- Ordinarily, such a disparity would be a factor putting one on notice and would support a finding that a spouse had reason to know of an understatement. We feel instructed, however, by the court's finding that "there is substantial evidence that the lifestyle of the Sympsons during this period did not change." Estate of Sympson v. Commissioner, 75 AFTR 2d at 95-2257, 95-1 USTC par. 50,276, at 88,021. The Court of Appeals also said: In contrast to this evidence [i.e. of increasing expenditures], Mrs. Sympson testified that, while the family lifestyle gradually improved each yearPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011