- 9 -
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-91, in support of the proposition
that a taxpayer’s signature on a tax return submitted without
payment does not constitute constructive knowledge by such
taxpayer of an underpayment. Petitioner contends that she did
not review the returns before signing them and that her signature
merely illustrates her knowledge that the returns needed to be
filed as soon as possible, as instructed by her accountant.
Petitioner’s contention is without merit. Petitioner had
reason to know at the time she signed the returns in 2000 that
taxes were due. By signing the joint returns, petitioner is
charged with constructive knowledge of the amounts shown on the
returns as tax due. Castle v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-142.
Failure to review the returns prior to signing does not relieve
petitioner of responsibility for the stated liability. See id.
Additionally, petitioner knew or had reason to know that the
tax liabilities reported in 2000 on her tax returns would not be
paid. In that regard, petitioner’s reliance on Wiest v.
Commissioner, supra, is misplaced. In Wiest, we held that the
spouse requesting relief could reasonably have expected the
nonrequesting spouse to pay the tax liability where the
nonrequesting spouse had already assumed responsibility for
preparing and filing the return. In the instant case, however,
after discovering that the returns for 1994 through 1998 had not
been filed, petitioner did not rely on her spouse to either
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011