- 34 -
The purpose of section 6015 is to protect one spouse from
the overreaching or dishonesty of the other. See Purcell v.
Commissioner, 826 F.2d at 475. The understatement in tax in this
case is attributable to a mistaken belief on the part of both
petitioner and Mr. Bartak as to the legitimacy of the tax shelter
deductions. Under these circumstances, we perceive no inequity
in holding both spouses to joint and several liability. Bokum v.
Commissioner, 94 T.C. 126, 146 (1990), affd. 992 F.2d 1132 (11th
Cir. 1993); McCoy v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 732, 735 (1972).
In considering all the facts and circumstances, it is worth
noting that petitioner was skeptical about the supposed tax
benefits provided by the Hoyt partnerships. Petitioner testified
that she was uncomfortable with the Hoyt partnerships because she
was leery that “something like this” (i.e., the tax problems)
would happen and that she “had a real foreboding about it”.
Petitioner also testified that she had an uneasy feeling about
the tax aspects of the Hoyt partnerships.
Furthermore, petitioner and Mr. Bartak took Hoyt partnership
deductions on their 1983 return. Mr. Bartak testified that he
thought he and petitioner invested in SGE 1983-1 in 1983. They
did not sign any documents, however, related to their investment
in a Hoyt partnership until April 1984. Taking deductions for
years prior to their investment in the Hoyt partnerships should
have raised additional suspicions.
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