- 29 -
necessary to obviate the conflict of interest. Rule 24(f). On
rare occasion, we require separate representation of persons with
differing interests, even if an apparent waiver has been
obtained. E.g., Para Techs. Trust v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1992-575.
Although Gilson and Wodlinger may have believed that there
was some chance that Mary Wheaton could succeed with an innocent
spouse defense, they were far from convinced that such a claim
would succeed. Wodlinger testified that he believed that Mary
Wheaton failed two of the tests for innocent spouse relief.
Gilson and Wodlinger discussed both the innocent spouse defense
and separate representation with Mary Wheaton, and she stated
that she did not want separate counsel and did not want to raise
the innocent spouse defense. She instructed Gilson and Wodlinger
to take their instructions from Frank Wheaton. Frank Wheaton
directed Gilson and Wodlinger not to raise an innocent spouse
defense.
We believe that Gilson and Wodlinger did obtain informed
consent from Mary Wheaton to represent both her and Frank Wheaton
with respect to the 1993 docketed cases, and we so find.
Moreover, nothing in the record puts these cases into the same
category as Para Techs. Trust v. Commissioner, supra, so that we
would require separate counsel even with an apparent waiver.
Although Mary Wheaton and respondent did, on July 1, 1996,
stipulate that Mary Wheaton is an innocent spouse for tax years
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011