- 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