- 32 -
Petitioner and her husband were represented by
Attorney William Winschel in the * * * [case for the
taxable years at issue]. Petitioner’s husband was
involved in all meetings with the attorney * * * while
Petitioner was not involved at all. * * * Petitioner’s
husband did not discuss the case with her * * * and
ultimately had the case settled by Attorney Winschel.
* * * Only two (2) minor items affected Petitioner
directly in that case, namely two (2) years of alleg-
edly omitted attorney income, neither of which could
have resulted in any additional tax liability.
* * * Accordingly, Petitioner’s participation could not
be meaningful in the * * * [case for the taxable years
at issue].
Respondent counters:
Petitioner argues that she was not personally
“involved” in the prior proceeding. * * * petitioner
* * * told [Mr.] Winschel to concede an issue. She
also received information involved in the settlement.
* * * Dr. Monsour testified that petitioner, Dr.
Monsour and attorney Winschel were present at several
dinner meetings at the Monsour home. The purpose of
the meetings was to discuss the Tax Court case. * * *
* * * * * * *
Furthermore, petitioner chose not to call [Mr.]
Winschel as a witness. * * * [Mr.] Winschel could have
testified as to petitioner’s participation in the prior
proceeding. From the failure to call [Mr.] Winschel to
testify it can only be inferred that [Mr.] Winschel’s
testimony, if given, would have been unfavorable to
petitioner. * * *
Although Mr. Winschel could have shed light on the extent of
petitioner’s participation in the case for the taxable years at
issue, as discussed above, petitioner chose not to call him to
23(...continued)
for relief under sec. 6015(f) that are filed on or after July 18,
2002. Sec. 1.6015-9, Income Tax Regs. Those final regulations
are not applicable in the instant case. That is because peti-
tioner filed petitioner’s Form 8857 on Feb. 12, 2001.
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011