-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 didPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011