- 25 -
organization also treated the taxpayer as a partner, issuing
Schedules K-1 that listed both the taxpayer and her spouse as
partners. Id.
The facts of Ellison are indistinguishable from those in the
present case and support the conclusion that the erroneous items
are not solely Mr. Abelein’s. Petitioner signed the partnership
documents required for her to become a partner and begin the
investment, and she indicated she was making the investment
jointly with Mr. Abelein. Petitioner and Mr. Abelein invested in
the Hoyt partnerships using funds from their joint bank account.
Petitioner wrote and signed personal checks that were payable to
the various Hoyt entities for their partnership interests. The
Hoyt organization viewed petitioner and Mr. Abelein as joint
investors.
Petitioner contends, however, that joint ownership of the
investment is not determinative of whether the erroneous item
giving rise to the understatement is attributable to one or both
spouses. Petitioner argues that the erroneous items should be
attributed to the individual who made the decisions relating to
the investment that produced those items and cites Rowe v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-325, to support her contention.
We reject petitioner’s argument because Rowe is
distinguishable from the present case. In deciding whether the
taxpayer in Rowe was entitled to section 6015(c) relief, we did
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011