- 25 -
casualty loss.23 We hold that respondent has not proven that
petitioner had actual knowledge of the factual circumstances
which made the NOL carryforward and the Far West Drilling
deductions unallowable.
c. Conclusion
We hold that petitioner is relieved of liability for
deficiencies attributable to Mr. Hopkins’s erroneous partnership
deductions except for the portion, if any, of the erroneous
partnership deductions that offsets her income. We also hold
that petitioner is liable for deficiencies attributable to her
erroneous NOL deductions to the extent the NOL deductions may
have offset her income, and she is relieved of liability for any
portion of the deficiencies attributable to the erroneous NOL
deductions which offset Mr. Hopkins’s income. Most of the income
for the years 1982, 1983, and 1984 was Mr. Hopkins’s income.
However, the record is not clear about some of the items of
income, such as interest. We expect the parties to resolve this
uncertainty as part of the Rule 155 computation.
23The NOL deductions were disallowed because of
overstatements of the NOL carryback and carryforward deductions
attributable to the casualty loss. A certified public accountant
prepared the joint tax returns for 1981, 1982, and 1984. He
testified that he dealt with Mr. Hopkins and could not recall
whether he discussed the tax returns with petitioner. He did not
testify regarding what petitioner did or did not know in signing
the joint returns.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011