- 11 -
about large deductions reported on the face of her joint return
and was unable to escape her tax responsibilities by ignoring the
contents of the return when signing it); see also Mora v.
Commissioner, 117 T.C. 279, 289 (2001); cf. Price v.
Commissioner, supra at 965-966 (spouse entitled to relief under
former section 6013(e) where she questioned her husband about the
erroneous deduction and he took advantage of her lack of
understanding of their financial affairs and misled her as to the
contents of the return by assuring her that the deduction was
proper). Petitioner could easily have discussed the contents of
the subject returns with Albin at or before the time that she
signed them. He did not coerce her into signing them, nor did he
exercise undue influence over her with respect to their financial
affairs. See Adams v. Commissioner, 60 T.C. 300, 303 (1973). As
the Court stated in a similar setting in Levin v. Commissioner,
supra:
a spouse cannot obtain the benefits of section 6013(e)
[the predecessor to section 6015] by simply turning a
blind eye to–-by preferring not to know of–-facts fully
disclosed on a return, of such a large nature as would
reasonably put such spouse on notice that further
inquiry would need to be made. * * *
Petitioner argues that she was unsophisticated as to
financial matters and that she signed each subject return on the
basis of her trust in Albin and his accountant to prepare the
returns correctly. Petitioner argues that she did not have any
duty of inquiry in that she did not know what to inquire about.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011