-12-
purporting to make her liable for his taxes. Third, he allegedly
committed fraud against the Tax Court when he filed a joint petition
with this Court for a redetermination of the deficiency. Pursuant
to the parties' stipulation, the Court entered a decision holding
Mr. Toscano and Ms. Zelasko jointly liable for deficiencies. The
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the Tax Court's
decision and held that Ms. Zelasko, under these circumstances, was
entitled to a hearing on her allegations.
In the case before us, it is undisputed that petitioners filed
joint income tax returns. Petitioner was aware of respondent's
adjustments to the 1975 through 1979 returns, as well as the
proceeding before this Court. She knew or certainly should have
known that she could be held liable for the tax deficiencies in the
event we sustained respondent's adjustments to the 1975-79 returns.
And most importantly, she signed the Stipulation of Settled Issues
and a Stipulation of Settlement, upon which the stipulated decision
document was partially based.
Petitioner has not satisfied her heavy burden of proving that
her purported signature on the stipulated decision affected the
outcome of the case; in other words, petitioner has failed to prove
that a different result might have occurred had the stipulated
decision been vacated.
In addition to requesting that the Court vacate the stipulated
decision, petitioner requests permission to amend a petition filed
14 years ago in order to assert an "innocent spouse" defense.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011