Sharon Lee Bartlett, F.K.A. Heitzman - Page 40

                                       - 40 -                                         

          2.   Knowledge or Reason to Know                                            
               Petitioner must establish “that * * * she did not know, and            
          had no reason to know, that there was * * * [a] substantial                 
          understatement” on the 1979 joint return.  Sec. 6013(e)(1)(C).              
          Respondent does not contend that petitioner had actual knowledge            
          of the understatements on the 1979 return nor would the record              
          support a contention to that effect.  Petitioner did not have               
          actual knowledge of the understatement at the time the 1979                 
          return was signed.                                                          
               We now turn to whether petitioner had reason to know of the            
          substantial understatement of income tax on the 1979 joint                  
          return.  Respondent contends that petitioner did have reason to             
          know.  We disagree.17                                                       

               17 Respondent relies heavily on a letter dated Nov. 25,                
          1985, that Mr. Heitzman wrote to the Atlanta Appeals Office in              
          response to a request for information from him concerning                   
          petitioner.  In that letter, Mr. Heitzman stated that he and                
          petitioner “reviewed very carefully any investment either one of            
          us made during our marriage”.  At trial in the case at hand,                
          Mr. Heitzman recanted what he wrote in the letter.                          
               Mr. Heitzman wrote that letter less than 2 years after he              
          and petitioner were divorced.  In 1985, Mr. Heitzman was still              
          very bitter over the failure of his marriage with petitioner.               
          Compounding Mr. Heitzman’s bitterness was the bankruptcy of both            
          of his businesses because of the death of his partner, who was              
          also one of his major financial backers, and the financial                  
          failure of his other major financial backer. To make matters                
          worse, Mr. Heitzman was also in the early stages of litigation              
          concerning the deficiency arising from the Stonehurst deductions            
          that eventually culminated in the decision in Heitzman v.                   
          Commissioner, supra.  He also had not yet been discharged from              
          bankruptcy and may well have hoped for contribution from                    
          petitioner irrespective of the “hold harmless” clause in the                
          divorce settlement agreement.                                               
                                                             (continued...)           


Page:  Previous  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011