- 21 -
1982. If petitioner had made a examination of the returns, she
would have noticed the deductions, but we need to determine
whether a reasonably prudent taxpayer in petitioner's position
would have inquired further.
In the instant case, besides writing checks for the
household expense, she was uninvolved in the family's finances.
She was unaware of Mr. Aude's salary during the years at issue.
When petitioner signed the returns, she was aware of the
existence of the Magnum transaction, but she never saw the
investment papers or knew the amount of Mr. Aude's capital
contributions in Magnum. Further, she was unaware of its tax
shelter nature. There were also no unexplained lavish or unusual
expenditures around this time which should have aroused
petitioner's curiosity. In sum, there were no facts present
which would have caused petitioner to harbor doubts about the
accuracy of the returns.
In signing the returns, petitioner neither reviewed the
returns nor questioned Mr. Gruys or Mr. Aude regarding the
returns. While petitioner's duty cannot be relieved based solely
on petitioner's reliance on her preparer, it is a factor to be
considered in light of the other circumstances. See Hayman v.
Commissioner, supra at 1262. In the preparation of the tax
returns, petitioner would submit her information regarding the
household expenses to Mr. Gruys, but she was not present when Mr.
Aude furnished his information to Mr. Gruys. Further, Mr. Gruys
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011