- 20 -
Petitioner was a partner in the Hoyt partnerships. She
signed documents relating to her and Mr. Ellison’s investment in
the Hoyt partnerships. See Hayman v. Commissioner, 992 F.2d
1256, 1260-1261 (2d Cir. 1993), affg. T.C. Memo. 1992-228.
Although petitioner may have signed the checks to the Hoyt
organization because Mr. Ellison asked her, the checks made
payable to Hoyt partnerships were drawn on petitioner and Mr.
Ellison’s joint bank account.
Furthermore, it is clear that the Hoyt organization treated
her, and Mr. Ellison, as a partner in the Hoyt partnerships. The
Schedules K-1 the Hoyt organization issued regarding their
investment in DGE 1984-2 listed petitioner and Mr. Ellison as
partners in this Hoyt partnership. Additionally, numerous other
documents refer to her as a partner in the Hoyt partnerships.
Finally, Mr. Ellison may have taken the initiative and
played a more dominant role in deciding to invest in the Hoyt
partnerships, but petitioner agreed to invest in the Hoyt
partnerships, and she did it jointly with Mr. Ellison.
Petitioner considered the Hoyt partnerships to be her and Mr.
Ellison’s investment. Additionally, petitioner admitted, in her
petition, to being a partner in DGE 1984-2 in 1985 and 1996.
Accordingly, we conclude that the understatements are not
attributable to the erroneous items of one individual filing the
joint returns. See Doyel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-35
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011