- 13 -
Second, the fact that petitioner may have been
unsophisticated about business matters in general, or tax
shelters in particular, does not on the record before us relieve
her of a duty of inquiry as to her tax liabilities. Hayman v.
Commissioner, supra at 1262; Levin v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner would clearly have seen, had she read the face of each
subject return, that the Albins were reporting large amounts of
income along with a large loss. She also would have clearly
seen, had she read the back of each page, that the Albins were
claiming that they owed little or no tax and were entitled to
significant refunds. Petitioner could have easily questioned
Albin as to the minimal or no tax in light of the large amounts
of income. Petitioner, however, opted not to read any part of
the returns or question Albin as to the returns. Instead, like
the taxpayer in Levin, petitioner turned a “blind eye” to her
Federal income tax liabilities for the subject years.10
Third, the referenced cases upon which petitioner relies are
all factually distinguishable from the case at hand. Each of
those cases, unlike this one, generally involved a controlling
husband who misled, deceived, or hid things from his wife as to
their financial affairs. In Guth v. Commissioner, 797 F.2d at
10 Petitioner asserts in her brief that the use of the
phrase “turning a blind eye” either denotes or connotes
fraudulent behavior on her part. We disagree. We use that
phrase to mean that petitioner preferred not to concern herself
at all as to her Federal income tax liabilities.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011