- 13 -
petitioner were in the midst of a fractious divorce. Apparently
in an effort to hurt petitioner (or at least to gain the upper
hand) Griffith reported petitioner to the authorities. Griffith
physically, mentally, and emotionally abused petitioner during
the entire course of their relationship. Moreover, Griffith had
other credibility issues. In 1989, Griffith, a securities
broker, was fined and barred from the National Association of
Securities Dealers (NASD) for converting the funds of three
different clients to his own use.
We also note that respondent afforded Griffith innocent
spouse protection for 1985, despite the fact that he co-signed
the joint return with full knowledge of the embezzled funds. If
the agent had spoken to petitioner, he would have known that
Griffith knew petitioner was stealing before he married her, that
the stealing continued throughout their marriage, and that
Griffith never asked petitioner to stop.
We also find misleading respondent's characterization of
petitioner's "refusal to sign" an amended return prepared by her
ex-husband's accountant as further evidence of her intent to
willfully evade her Federal income tax for the years in issue.
It was Griffith, not Agent Johnson, who asked petitioner to sign
the amended return. At that time the couple was in the middle of
a difficult divorce, and her refusal to trust Griffith was not
unreasonable. Moreover, Griffith's accountant testified that he
had prepared the amended return exclusively on information
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011