- 19 -
1992 joint return, and (d) tax shown due of $274 in the 1993
joint return. In signing each of the joint returns for the
taxable years at issue, petitioner did not raise any questions
with Mr. Monsour or Mr. Iezzi regarding any of those returns.
Before petitioner signed each of the joint returns for the tax-
able years at issue, she read the jurat clause that appeared
above the signature lines in each such return.
In their first 1990 amended joint return, petitioner and Mr.
Monsour showed total income as originally reported of $357,105,
taxable income as originally reported of $270,922, tax as origi-
nally reported of $78,155, credits as adjusted of $1,323,6 and
total tax liability as adjusted of $76,832. In that amended
return, petitioner and Mr. Monsour showed a net decrease in total
income of $101,287, correct total income of $255,818, correct
taxable income of $169,635, correct tax of $47,841, correct total
tax liability of $46,518, and tax due of $44,861.7 Part II,
Explanation of Changes to Income, Deductions, and Credits (Part
6Petitioner and Mr. Monsour reported in the original 1990
joint return a credit of $41,785.
7In the original 1990 joint return, petitioner and Mr.
Monsour showed tax due of $34,713. Although there were net
decreases shown in the first 1990 amended return in the respec-
tive amounts of total income and taxable income reported in the
original 1990 joint return, that amended return showed an in-
crease in the tax due shown in that original return because
petitioner and Mr. Monsour claimed (1) a credit of $41,785 in the
original 1990 joint return and (2) a credit of $1,323 in the
first 1990 amended joint return.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011