Eloise Gaddy Joens - Page 20

                                                - 20 -                                                

            illegal income does not support her contention that she had no                            
            reason to know about the understatements of tax.  Instead of                              
            exculpating petitioner, the evasiveness should have caused her to                         
            question her then-husband's activities and investigate the tax                            
            returns further.  See id. at 1507.  Petitioner testified that                             
            Emmens "was always sticking papers in front of [her] to sign",                            
            kept extremely unusual work hours, and was very secretive about                           
            his business.  Petitioner further testified that he was a                                 
            "dominant person"; however, she was not prevented from examining                          
            the returns or any other documents.  A reasonably prudent person                          
            in petitioner's position would have been prompted to inquire                              
            further into the joint tax liability.                                                     
                  During the years in issue, petitioner lived a lifestyle that                        
            far exceeded the income reported on her and Emmens' joint tax                             
            returns.  Their legitimate locksmith and beauty salon activities                          
            were only marginally profitable.  Accordingly, we find that                               
            petitioner knew, or should have known of the substantial                                  
            understatements of tax.                                                                   
                  Not Equitable To Hold Petitioner Liable                                             
                  To be entitled to relief as an innocent spouse, petitioner                          
            must show that it would be inequitable to hold her liable for the                         
            deficiencies in tax for the years at issue.  Sec. 6013(e)(1)(D).                          
            Again assuming, arguendo, that petitioner had satisfied the                               
            knowledge requirement, she still is not entitled to innocent                              





Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011