- 27 - Petitioner and Mr. Abelein met Hoyt representatives, toured the Hoyt ranches, received and read various promotional and informational materials from the Hoyt partnerships, became partners by signing the subscription agreements, attended Hoyt partnership meetings, paid Hoyt bills, made phone calls to the Hoyt organization, and reviewed and signed income tax returns prepared by the Hoyt organization. Additionally, petitioner admitted that she and Mr. Abelein agreed they should invest in the Hoyt partnership. Regardless of whether Mr. Abelein proposed the DGE investment to petitioner and at times petitioner simply complied with Mr. Abelein’s requests out of lack of interest in business matters, petitioner ultimately agreed to invest in the partnership, invested jointly with Mr. Abelein, and actively participated in the investment. This is sufficient for us to find that the erroneous items giving rise to the understatement of tax are attributable to both petitioner and Mr. Abelein. Capehart v. Commissioner, supra; Bartak v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-83; Ellison v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-57; see also Mora v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 279, 290 (2001); Doyel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-35. We conclude that petitioner has failed to prove that the erroneous items giving rise to the understatement of tax are Mr. Abelein’s alone. Because petitioner’s failure to satisfy the requirement of subparagraph (B) of section 6015(b)(1) isPage: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011