- 14 -
indicative “of the fact that he is not cooperating.” Petitioner
complains in her posttrial brief that respondent would not agree
to a posttrial deposition of H. Smith, but petitioner has not
shown any reason why the record should be reopened after trial
for the purpose of receiving evidence that cannot be described as
“newly discovered”.
Petitioner argues that she had a reasonable belief that the
tax liability reported on the joint returns would be paid. Her
alleged belief, however, was based only on the absence of
knowledge that payment would not be made. She testified that she
did not inquire (or did not recall inquiring) whether or how that
amount would be paid. The liability shown on the 1987 return
exceeded $60,000. Petitioner is neither uneducated nor
unintelligent. We do not believe that she would have been
disinterested in how such a large amount would have been paid or
oblivious about the family resources from which the taxes could
have been paid.
The parties’ briefs dispute whether certain case precedents
are persuasive or distinguishable. The record, however, does not
support findings sufficient to make a comparison to the
circumstances in prior cases. Petitioner’s briefs assert facts
that are not in the record, see Rule 143(b), and petitioner seeks
to impose on respondent the burden of negating conclusory
testimony such as that quoted above. We cannot, on this record,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011