- 44 -
That petitioner was satisfied by Mr. Heitzman’s superficial
explanation of the Stonehurst transaction precisely captures how
uninvolved she was in the family’s financial affairs. The only
joint investment that Mr. Heitzman and petitioner made together
was their home. Mr. Heitzman routinely made investment decisions
during their marriage with no participation by petitioner. In
petitioner’s mind, the Stonehurst purchase was like every other
business transaction that Mr. Heitzman had made during their
marriage: It was his property and his affair, and petitioner was
not privy to any meaningful information about it. Petitioner did
not review any documentation such as the Stonehurst Memorandum or
the purchase contract or assumption agreements. She knew nothing
of the substance of the transaction, nor did Mr. Heitzman discuss
with her any of its salient substantive aspects.
While Mr. Heitzman was neither evasive nor deceptive with
petitioner about his investment and other financial decisions, by
the same token, he brooked no intrusion by petitioner into what
he considered his affairs. Mr. Heitzman regarded the Stonehurst
purchase and his other, legitimate investments to be his, funded
with his money. Petitioner had no role in deciding whether to
purchase the Stonehurst interest. She also remained uninvolved
in subsequently claiming the deductions incident to that
transaction on their 1979 joint income tax return. In any case,
given the context of her and Mr. Heitzman’s marital relationship,
petitioner would never have expected to have had such a role.
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011