- 25 -
partnership agreement before she and Mr. Capehart signed it, and
she made phone calls to the Hoyt organization on several
occasions to obtain answers to both her own and Mr. Capehart’s
questions about their investments. Regardless of whether Mr.
Capehart played a dominant role in the decision to invest in the
Hoyt partnerships or whether petitioner, at times, was simply
following Mr. Capehart’s orders, the fact that petitioner
ultimately agreed to become a partner and participated in
managing the investment is sufficient for us to find that the
erroneous items giving rise to the understatements of tax are
items of both petitioner and Mr. Capehart. Bartak v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-83; Ellison v. Commissioner, supra;
see also Mora v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. at 290; Doyel v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-35.
Petitioner argues that the facts of this case are
distinguishable from Bartak and Doyel because Mr. Capehart
coerced petitioner into participating in the investment,
controlled all aspects of the investment, and acted in a
deceitful and domineering manner towards petitioner with regard
to partnership matters. However, the record is lacking in
credible evidence to support petitioner’s allegations. Although
Mr. Capehart initiated the investment in the Hoyt partnerships,
he never persuaded petitioner to participate in the investment by
coercing, deceiving, or threatening her. To the contrary, Mr.
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011