- 9 -
By doing so we are led to conclude that petitioner's former
spouse, David, was so secretive and devious about his financial
affairs, and his business records were so hopelessly arcane and
tangled, that it would have been impossible for petitioner to
obtain even an approximate idea of the magnitude of David's
dereliction.
Petitioner was, however, precisely aware of the amounts
derived from Hitech via David that actually passed through her
hands. As we have found, in 1984, petitioner was given 23 checks
from Hitech, totaling $54,500. In 1985, petitioner received 15
Hitech checks totaling $140,500. During these same years
petitioner spent substantial amounts for clothing for herself and
her children, loans to a child, charitable and political
contributions, entertainment and gifts, home furnishings, home
repair and maintenance, credit card payments, mortgage payments,
and numerous other miscellaneous expenses.
Taking all of the facts and circumstances into
consideration, and mindful of the Circuit Court's assurance that
apportionment here is both available and proper, we hold that
petitioner did not know or have reason to know of the portions of
the understatements attributable to the grossly erroneous items
attributable to David in 1984 and 1985 in excess of the amounts
represented by the Hitech checks received by petitioner from
David in those years, and that it would be inequitable to hold
her liable for deficiencies as to those portions.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011