Sharon Lee Bartlett, F.K.A. Heitzman - Page 41

                                       - 41 -                                         

               In Bokum v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 126 (1990), affd. on                 
          another ground 999 F.2d 1132 (11th Cir. 1993), we held that “the            
          taxpayer claiming innocent spouse status must establish that he             
          or she is unaware of the circumstances that give rise to error on           
          the tax return and not merely to be unaware of the tax                      
          consequences”.  Id. at 145-146 (citing Purcell v. Commissioner,             
          86 T.C. 228, 238 (1986), affd. 826 F.2d 470 (6th Cir. 1987)).  In           
          Bokum v. Commissioner, supra at 146, we held that a putative                
          innocent spouse’s knowledge of the relevant underlying                      
          transaction incident to the grossly erroneous deduction and the             
          appearance of a large, unexplained deduction on the face of the             
          income tax return, id. at 148, are both independently sufficient            
          to cause the putative innocent spouse either to have a reason to            
          know of the substantial understatement of tax incident to a                 
          grossly erroneous deduction or to impose upon her a duty to                 
          inquire.                                                                    




               17(...continued)                                                       
               At trial, Mr. Heitzman explained his state of mind:                    
               you put all that together, and it was pretty * * *                     
               devastating.  And so, you know, I felt my world has                    
               fallen apart.  I was bitter because of the marriage                    
               that didn’t work.  I’m sorry. * * * I take full                        
               responsibility * * * [for] the letter I wrote * * *                    
               [which] doesn’t reflect the facts * * * when I now can                 
               look at it later.                                                      
               Based upon Mr. Heitzman’s testimony at trial and the                   
          evidence in the record directly contradicting allegations in the            
          letter, we give the letter no credence.                                     


Page:  Previous  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011