- 33 -
testified that she signed the documents to “avoid making things
difficult at home.”
Petitioner further testified that when she signed the tax
returns in issue, she would say: “I’m signing this under
protest.” Petitioner, however, explained that she merely stated
this as an expression of her frustration and that she signed the
returns in order to keep peace in the family. Petitioner and Mr.
Bartak testified that Mr. Bartak (1) did not force her, or
threaten her, to sign the returns, Hoyt documents, or checks, (2)
did not force her, or threaten her, to invest in the Hoyt
partnerships, and (3) that Mr. Bartak did not abuse her.
Petitioner also notes that Mr. Bartak opened all the mail
from the Hoyt organization and the IRS. Petitioner testified
that she could have looked at the mail and Mr. Bartak’s files
regarding the Hoyt partnerships if she had wanted. Mr. Bartak
did not hide, or try to hide, any mail from petitioner.
Petitioner testified that she saw everything that she wanted to
see.
Petitioner claims that Mr. Hoyt’s deceit is relevant to the
determination whether petitioner is entitled to relief under
section 6015(f). Ms. Flandez considered the fact that both
petitioner and Mr. Bartak were deceived by Mr. Hoyt. Even if Mr.
Hoyt’s deceit is relevant, it does not lead to the result
petitioner desires.
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