John A. and Donna L. Rowe - Page 18




                                       - 18 -                                         
          petitioner and Mr. Rowe.  Petitioner admitted signing the                   
          settlement statement for one of the properties and endorsing one            
          of the checks.  Petitioner’s name was signed on the settlement              
          statement for the other property and on the other check; however,           
          petitioner disputed at trial that she had made these signatures.            
          The capital gains from the sales of the properties were not                 
          reported on petitioner and Mr. Rowe’s 1987 and 1988 returns.                
               We agreed with respondent that the capital gains were                  
          allocable evenly between petitioner and Mr. Rowe.  However, we              
          rejected respondent’s argument that petitioner had actual                   
          knowledge of the omitted income.  We did so largely on the basis            
          of our finding that Mr. Rowe refused to allow petitioner to                 
          review most of their tax return information and that,                       
          consequently, she did not know of the sale of one of the                    
          properties, the amounts of the gain on the sales, or that any               
          gains were made on the sales.  We held that petitioner was                  
          entitled to relief under section 6015(c) for the half of the                
          capital gains allocable to Mr. Rowe.                                        
               Respondent’s position that petitioner had actual knowledge             
          of the capital gains from the sales was based on the facts that             
          she was a joint owner of the properties and her signature was on            
          the settlement statements and the checks representing the                   
          proceeds of the sales.  On the basis of these facts and the                 
          relevant legal precedent, we find that respondent had a                     






Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011