- 26 -
Petitioner was aware of the large deductions taken on her
joint tax returns associated with the Hoyt investments. The Hoyt
investment materials she was shown and had the opportunity to
review apprised her of tax risks associated with the investment.
These facts establish that petitioner had “reason to know”. See
Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. at 117.
Petitioner and her husband testified that petitioner was
aware of the investment in the Hoyt partnerships, that she had
access to all of the files/information regarding the Hoyt
investment, and that Mr. Bartak made no effort to deceive
petitioner regarding the family’s financial affairs. This
further supports a finding that petitioner had reason to know of
the understatement. Id. at 118.
Petitioner claims that Mr. Hoyt’s deceit is relevant to the
determination of “reason to know”. Although Mr. Hoyt’s deceit
may be relevant, it does not lead to the result petitioner seeks.
The purpose of section 6015 relief is to protect one spouse
from the overreaching or dishonesty of the other. Purcell v.
Commissioner, 826 F.2d 470, 475 (6th Cir. 1987), affg. 86 T.C.
228 (1986). Relief is inappropriate where it would allow the
requesting spouse to escape liability for apparently legitimate
claims that are later disallowed. See Bartlett v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1997-413.
As was the case in Mora v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 279, 288
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011