- 23 -
her perception. In reaching this decision, the court noted that
the taxpayer had asked her husband "why there was no income on
the returns reflecting the money that * * * [they] had been
living off". Id. at 1462. She stated that he gave her a bizarre
explanation that did not make sense to her. Id. at 1462-1463.
Prior to signing the return, the taxpayer had learned of a
restraining order preventing her husband from soliciting
investments, and she read an article that purportedly explained
the sham her husband was involved in. Id. at 1461. At the very
least, the court stated that the taxpayer "knew something was
awry, but refused to go further." Id. at 1463. In light of
extremely small sums of income reported, the evidence of
excessive spending, and the large sums of money on hand, the
court held the evidence of an understatement was overwhelming and
the taxpayer could not hide from it. Id. In light of this
overwhelming evidence, any abuse did not provide an adequate
explanation for her behavior. Id. at 1463 n.2 (citing Kistner v.
Commissioner, 18 F.3d at 15269.
Petitioner's situation is distinguishable from the
9 In Wiksell v. Commissioner, 90 F.3d 1459, 1463 n.2 (9th
Cir. 1996), revg. T.C. Memo. 1994-99, the Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit noted the Eleventh Circuit's holding in Kistner
v. Commissioner, 18 F.3d 1521 (11th Cir. 1994), revg. and
remanding T.C. Memo. 1994-463, that spousal abuse could reach a
point so as to provide an adequate explanation for deference to
offending spouse. However, under the facts, the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit held that the taxpayer could not hide from
the overwhelming evidence and that any abuse did not provide an
explanation. Id.
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