- 10 -
Petitioner had no reason to believe that any tax obligation
resulting from the filing of the return would not be paid by
Roger L. Castle.” In support of that contention, petitioner
testified that she did not even know that the 1993 joint return
showed tax due of $23,457 because she was “hurried” when she
signed it.6 Petitioner’s testimony that she did not know that
the 1993 joint return showed tax due of $23,457 is belied by her
testimony that she believed the 1993 joint return to be true and
correct when she signed it.7 We are not required to, and we
shall not, rely on petitioner’s testimony to establish that she
had no knowledge or reason to know that the tax due shown in the
1993 joint return would not be paid. See Geiger v. Commissioner,
440 F.2d 688, 689-690 (9th Cir. 1971), affg. per curiam T.C.
Memo. 1969-159; Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986).
6In this connection, petitioner testified as follows regard-
ing the circumstances surrounding her signing of the 1993 joint
return:
I [petitioner] was at work and Mr. Castle called me and
said that I had to meet him at the accountant’s immedi-
ately, to get there as quickly as possible, that I had
to sign this return, that they were closing. So I ran
in the door. It was a small firm. They laid the sheet
in front of me. I signed the paper, they stuck it in
an envelope, and we left.
7Moreover, by signing the 1993 joint return petitioner is
charged with constructive knowledge of, inter alia, the tax due
shown in that return. See Park v. Commissioner, 25 F.3d 1289,
1299 (5th Cir. 1994), affg. T.C. Memo. 1993-252; see also Hayman
v. Commissioner, 992 F.2d 1256, 1262 (2d Cir. 1993), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1992-228.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011