- 12 -
Petitioner has failed to satisfy this requirement. Petitioner
was aware of the existence of the tax shelter investments; she
wrote the checks. See Alt v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 306 (2002);
Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106 (2002) (no evidence was
presented that husband concealed or attempted to deceive electing
wife concerning couple’s financial affairs). There is no
evidence that petitioner was denied access to the documents
concerning the tax shelters. See Jonson v. Commissioner, supra
at 119 (spouse had access to financial files). Petitioner has
not alleged that she was misled but only that she relied on her
husband to take care of the returns. See Hayman v. Commissioner,
992 F.2d 1256, 1262 (2d Cir. 1993) (“Although * * * [the
taxpayer] claims to have signed the returns without reading them,
she nevertheless is charged with constructive knowledge of their
contents.”), affg. T.C. Memo. 1992-228; Price v. Commissioner,
887 F.2d 959, 965 (9th Cir. 1989) (spouse cannot obtain benefits
by simply turning a blind eye to facts fully disclosed on
return); Levin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-67 (spouse cannot
obtain benefits of innocent spouse protection in deduction case
“by simply turning a blind eye to-–by preferring not to know of-
–facts fully disclosed on a return, of such a large nature as
would reasonably put such spouse on notice that further inquiry
would need to be made”).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011