Susan L. Abelein - Page 27

                                       - 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) is                    






Page:  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