- 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