- 8 -
through 1984. The evidence establishes that petitioner was a
limited partner in both Media Marketers and Assured Communications.
She signed documents authorizing the investments, and Forms K-1
were issued naming both petitioner and her husband as partners in
the limited partnerships. Petitioner attended a meeting in which
she was informed about the tax risks and rewards of making an
investment in the limited partnerships, and she acquiesced in
becoming a partner with her husband. See Hayman v. Commissioner,
992 F.2d 1256 (2d Cir. 1993), affg. T.C. Memo. 1992-228; Feldman v.
Commissioner, 20 F.3d 1128 (11th Cir. 1994), affg. T.C. Memo. 1993-
17.
Although petitioner may not have understood the technical tax
nuances involved in petitioners' investment in the two limited
partnerships, we believe she knew (1) that such investments would
enable petitioners to claim substantial deductions and tax credits
that would result in the reduction of the amount of taxes
petitioners otherwise would owe, and (2) that the Internal Revenue
Service might disallow these deductions and tax credits upon audit
of petitioners' returns.
Petitioner asserts she is an "ignorant spouse". But as the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (where an
appeal of this case would lie) has said: "Of itself, ignorance of
the attendant legal or tax consequences of an item which gives rise
to a deficiency is no defense for one seeking to obtain innocent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011