- 16 -
expenditures that appear lavish or unusual when compared to the
family’s past levels of income, standard of living, and spending
patterns; and (4) the culpable spouse’s evasiveness and deceit
concerning the couple’s finances. See Hayman v. Commissioner,
supra at 1261; Price v. Commissioner, supra at 965.
1. Facts Supporting a Finding that Petitioner Lacked
Constructive Knowledge of Understatement
On one hand, certain of the above-mentioned factors indicate
that petitioner did not have reason to know of the understatement
of tax contained in the couple’s 1981 and 1982 tax returns.
First, petitioner had no role in the couple’s finances beyond
making payments for household expenses. All other matters were
the responsibility of her income-producing counterpart, a
responsibility which he in turn delegated to his personal
secretary. While Mr. Von Kalinowski did not seek to hide any
financial information from petitioner, the two simply did not
discuss such matters beyond mere generalities. In keeping with
this general practice, petitioner was at no time aware of her
husband’s participation in the tax shelter investments.
Second, as reflected in the findings of fact, petitioners
maintained a reasonably affluent lifestyle both prior to their
marriage and during the years which followed. Petitioner
testified that she did not experience a change of lifestyle
during the tax years at issue, and we find her testimony credible
in this regard. We are satisfied that nothing about petitioners’
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011