- 3 -
105-206, 112 Stat. 734, requires us to reconsider: (1) Whether
petitioner had "actual knowledge" of the Hitech checks which gave
rise to the deficiency, and (2) if so, whether petitioner signed
her 1984 and 1985 joint tax returns under duress.
Respondent argues that (1) our prior opinions have already
addressed the question and found that petitioner had actual
knowledge of the Hitech checks, and (2) our prior opinions and
the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit have
addressed the question and found that petitioner did not show
duress.
For the reasons stated below, we agree with respondent.
Background
We adopt the findings of fact in our prior memorandum
opinions, Wiksell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-99, and
Wiksell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-3, as modified in the
latter. For convenience, we repeat the facts necessary to
elucidate the ensuing discussion.
David L. Wiksell (David) and petitioner were married in
1960, legally separated in 1988, and divorced in December 1992.
Petitioner, formerly Margaret Ann Wiksell, is now known as
Margaret Ann Carpender. During the years in issue, and
throughout most of her marriage, petitioner maintained her own
separate checking accounts.
Sometime in 1982 or 1983, David started Hitech Recovery
Systems, Inc. (Hitech). David told petitioner that Hitech was to
engage in the extraction of oil from old oil wells.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011