- 10 -
allow her accountant to testify on his calculation of her
adjusted gross income for 1995, we decline to do so.5 Ms. Evans
has been represented by counsel throughout this proceeding, and
she could have called her accountant as a witness at trial. For
some reason, which she has not articulated and which we decline
to surmise, she did not call her accountant as a witness. Her
failure to establish her 1995 adjusted gross income prevents her
from qualifying as an innocent spouse on the deduction issue.
Sec. 6013(e)(4); see Reser v. Commissioner, supra at 1262.
Turning to the omitted income issue, which applies to 1989
only, we disagree with Ms. Evans that she has met the third
requirement; i.e., an absence of actual and constructive notice
of the substantial understatement upon signing the return.
Although she may not have had actual knowledge that the income
was omitted, because she did not review the 1989 return before it
was filed, she should have known of the omitted income. A
taxpayer should know about a substantial understatement
5 Petitioners have also moved to reopen the record to admit
an affidavit of Ms. Evans' accountant for the purpose of
establishing Ms. Evans' adjusted gross income for 1995; we filed
petitioners' motion 10 days after we filed their reply brief.
Respondent objected to petitioners' motion, stating that
petitioners were aware of this issue before trial and could have
addressed it at trial. Respondent also objected to the admission
of the affidavit as hearsay. We shall deny petitioners' motion
to include the affidavit in the record. Even if we were to
exercise our discretion to reopen the record, which we do not do,
we would not admit the affidavit into evidence. The affidavit is
hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011