- 7 -
In view of petitioner’s admitted execution of the
Certificate of Marital Status, which expressly referred to
Nichols’s Lottery Prize Assignment Agreement, we cannot conclude
that she did not know or have reason to know that there was an
understatement on a tax return that did not report the proceeds
of the sale of the lottery rights.
Moreover, respondent has established that petitioner had
actual knowledge of the item giving rise to the deficiency at the
time that she signed the return. Although petitioner disavows
involvement with the transaction and with the return preparation,
she has not established that she signed the return under duress.
Petitioner testified:
It was not uncommon for me to take paper from my
ex-husband’s business during our marriage. I would
take them next to Cheryl Coleman, who was a realtor,
and she would notarize statements. I never read the
statements I was filing. I would make deposits at his
bank. This was the only involvement I had with his
business.
Petitioner’s argument that she did not read what she was signing
is unpersuasive and unavailing. She was articulate in presenting
her case at the time of trial, and she was obviously able to
function in a normal manner despite her claimed medical
disabilities. She cannot be excused from the implications of the
Certificate of Marital Status, and she has not satisfied the
requirements for relief from joint and several liability.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011