- 16 -
believe a married couple should file joint income tax returns.4
We note, however, that in exchange for assuming joint and several
liability for Mr. Ogonoski’s taxes by filing jointly, petitioner
became entitled to and received certain tax advantages. We
explained the reason for the provisions establishing joint and
several liability in Sonnenborn v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 373,
380-381 (1971), as follows:
It is important that these provisions be kept in
proper perspective. The filing of a joint return is
a highly valuable privilege to husband and wife since
the resulting tax liability is generally
substantially less than the combined taxes that would
be due from both spouses if they had filed separate
returns. This circumstance gives particular emphasis
to the statutory rule that liability with respect to
tax is joint and several, regardless of the source of
the income or of the fact that one spouse may be far
less informed about the contents of the return than
the other, for both spouses ordinarily benefit from
the reduction in tax that ensues by reason of the
joint return. * * *
See also Murphy v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 111, 117 (1994).
When petitioner voluntarily signed the returns with the
knowledge of Mr. Ogonoski’s “pattern” of nonpayment, petitioner
assumed the risk Mr. Ogonoski would not pay the reported
liabilities.
4Petitioner cannot persuasively claim she was unaware she
could file separately from Mr. Ogonoski because the instructions
to Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, inform married
taxpayers they have the right to file separately, and the Form
1040 that she signed allows the taxpayer to check a box for
“married filing separate return” status. Petitioner’s failure to
know or understand the tax laws is not a defense. See Cheshire v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 183, 198 (2000), affd. 282 F.3d 326 (5th
Cir. 2002).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011