- 16 -
to examine the return and verify that payment was sent with the
return.
Petitioner has not provided this Court with credible
evidence to show that she reasonably believed that Mr. Pierce
would pay the tax liability at the time she signed the return.
As a result, the Court finds that petitioner had constructive
knowledge that the liability would not be paid for 1994.
Petitioner also has not shown that she will suffer economic
hardship if relief is denied. Petitioner in fact concedes that
she can afford to pay the unpaid tax liability but argues that
only her 1996 financial situation, not her current one, is
relevant. This rationale is apparently the reason that
petitioner submitted a 1996 financial statement and not a current
one. Thus, this Court holds that petitioner will not suffer
economic hardship if relief is denied.
In her petition, petitioner alleges that Mr. Pierce,
throughout their marriage, engaged in "brainwashing" as a form of
spousal abuse. Her position is that the abusive behavior is a
factor that ought to sway the Court to grant her relief from
joint and several liability. Petitioner's allegation, however,
is unsupported by any evidence. The Court, therefore, does not
consider this factor.
Finally, petitioner's assertion that Mr. Pierce was
generally deceptive in connection with their finances is
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