Gerald Dennis Strong - Page 31




                                       - 31 -                                         
          taxpayer’s spouse intended a joint tax return even though the               
          taxpayer’s spouse did not sign the tax return.  See Lane v.                 
          Commissioner, 26 T.C. 405, 408-409 (1956).11                                


               11Our analysis in Klayman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1979-            
          408, applies very well to the instant case, as follows:                     
                    Respondent’s second legal argument is related to                  
               the first.  Respondent contends that the doctrine of                   
               tacit consent, pursuant to which we have upheld                        
               determinations that a joint return is valid even if not                
               signed by both spouses, applies only in situations in                  
               which respondent has determined that the return is a                   
               joint return.  Respondent contends that he can rely on                 
               this doctrine to determine that an unsigned return is a                
               joint return, but that taxpayers cannot rely on a                      
               theory of tacit consent to support their claim that an                 
               unsigned return is a joint return.  In essence,                        
               respondent argues that a taxpayer cannot prove that one                
               spouse tacitly consented to the other spouse’s filing                  
               of a joint return.  In support of this position,                       
               respondent relies on Hennen v. Commissioner, 35 T.C.                   
               747 (1961), and Parker v. Commissioner, 37 T.C.M. 144,                 
               47 P-H Memo. T.C. par. 78,023 (1978).                                  
                    Again, respondent’s position is without merit.                    
               Although Hennen v. Commissioner, supra, does contain                   
               language to the effect that the presumption of tacit                   
               consent has been applied only upon a determination by                  
               respondent, we also stated in Hennen that the tacit                    
               consent presumption is only an explanation of the basis                
               for respondent’s determination.  We held in Hennen that                
               the taxpayer cannot rely on a presumption of tacit                     
               consent if respondent determines that no such consent                  
               existed.  Rather, in such situations the taxpayer must                 
               prove that tacit consent existed.  Similarly, in Parker                
               v. Commissioner, supra, we held that the presumption of                
               tacit consent was inapplicable when respondent                         
               determined that a return was not joint, but the                        
               taxpayers were able to prove that one spouse tacitly                   
               consented to the filing of joint returns by the other.                 
               Indeed, Parker v. Commissioner supports a conclusion                   
               directly contradictory to the position respondent has                  
               adopted here.  See also Lane v. Commissioner, 26 T.C.                  
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011