-4-
other claim of entitlement to equitable relief under section
6015(f).
We disagree with petitioner that he is entitled to equitable
relief on account of his claim of duress. In Berger v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-76, the taxpayer signed a joint
income tax return pursuant to a divorce settlement and court
order. We concluded that the taxpayer did not sign that return
under duress. We held that the taxpayer’s allegations that she
was “afraid of the ‘consequences’ of defying a court order” did
not constitute duress under State law.
Our holding in Berger is equally applicable here. Under
Michigan law, i.e., the law which applies to the Prices’ divorce
proceeding, petitioner’s allegations, even if true, do not
constitute duress. The Supreme Court of Michigan has explained
that duress under Michigan law is present “when one by the
unlawful act of another is induced to make a contract or perform
some act under circumstances which deprive him of the exercise of
free will.” Hackley v. Headley, 8 N.W. 511, 512-513 (Mich.
1881); see also Beachlawn Bldg. Corp. v. St. Clair Shores,
121 N.W.2d 427, 429-430 (Mich. 1963) (same definition quoted);
Norton v. Mich. State Highway Dept., 24 N.W.2d 132, 135 (Mich.
1946) (same definition quoted). In that the circuit court did
not by an unlawful act induce petitioner to file joint returns
for 1994 and 1995 against his free will, we conclude that he did
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011