- 15 - Although finances and taxes may have been a contentious issue between petitioner and Mr. Elesh, we find that petitioner voluntarily chose not to review the returns prior to signing them. We do not find credible petitioner’s testimony that she was significantly pressured by the alleged threats by Mr. Elesh to discontinue telephone or electrical service to his own home. Petitioner testified that she “didn’t really have any reason to worry” about the items on the tax returns, and that she “wasn’t concerned about them, other than the fact that I know you’re supposed to read something before you sign it.” In the end, petitioner simply was not sufficiently concerned with the tax returns to review them or to question any items appearing thereon. Because petitioner had full knowledge of the underlying transaction, and failed to review or otherwise verify the accuracy of the returns prior to signing them, we do not find an abuse of discretion in respondent’s denial of equitable relief to petitioner. Negligence Penalties Finally, we turn to the section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalties. This Court has held that: it is an abuse of discretion to deny relief under section 6015(f) in an addition to tax or penalty situation when on an individual basis the putative innocent spouse meets the statutory standard generally applied to all taxpayers that shows the addition to tax or penalty is inapplicable.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011