Marianne Hopkins - Page 25

                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011