- 15 -
answers to the questions they posed to petitioner's divorce
attorney regarding the net operating loss carryover claimed on
the return. Yet, in spite of these doubts, neither petitioner
nor her daughter looked beyond the inquiries they made with the
divorce lawyer. The Court disagrees with petitioner's argument
that she is entitled to relief under the standard set forth in
Price v. Commissioner, 887 F.2d 959, 965 (9th Cir. 1989), revg.
an Oral Opinion of this Court, that a spouse has "reason to know"
of an understatement if a reasonably prudent taxpayer in his or
her position at the time of signing the return could be expected
to know that the return contained the understatement. Although
this Court is not bound by Price v. Commissioner, supra, under
Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742, 756-757 (1970), affd. 445
F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971), since this case would not be
appealable to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the
facts here satisfy the Court that petitioner did not meet the
standard set forth in Price. Petitioner and her daughter both
knew that petitioner's divorce attorney was not knowledgeable
about tax law, and the explanations the attorney provided
convinced them that such explanations were not satisfactory.
Yet, petitioner made no further efforts to go beyond the
recommendations of her divorce lawyer. Petitioner was under a
duty to inquire further. For 1993, therefore, the Court holds
that petitioner possessed constructive knowledge of the
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