- 9 - tax would not be paid” when the return was signed or filed.7 See Notice 98-61, sec. 3.03(2)(b); see also Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03(1)(d). Because the determination letter equated petitioner’s signing of the return with actual or constructive knowledge of the underpayment, it failed to consider the relevant question of whether petitioner knew or had reason to know that the tax would not be paid. Consequently, the determination letter’s conclusion that petitioner knew or had reason to know of the underpayment was arbitrary and without sound basis in fact. We proceed to consider, “taking into account all the facts and circumstances”, section 6015(f)(1), whether petitioner knew or had reason to know that the tax shown as due on the 1994 return would not be paid. Petitioner gave credible testimony at trial. He testified that Ms. Wiest had assumed responsibility for having the 1994 return prepared and filed, and that he turned over his Forms W-2 to her for that purpose. The testimony of the preparer of the 1994 return corroborates petitioner’s testimony. The preparer testified that she was a high school acquaintance of Ms. Wiest, not petitioner, and that it was Ms. Wiest who provided her with 7 Rev. Proc. 2000-15 revises Notice 98-61 with respect to the time when it is relevant whether the taxpayer knew a tax would not be paid. Rev. Proc. 2000-15 provides that the relevant time is when the return is “signed”, whereas Notice 98-61 provides that it is when the return is “filed”. We do not believe this distinction is material in this case.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