- 9 -
No Knowledge or Reason To Know
Petitioner knew that the tax liability shown on the 1998
joint return would not be paid when the return was filed.
Petitioner contends that, when she signed the joint return, she
thought that her IRA would be seized by the bankruptcy court and
used to pay the 1998 joint liability. According to petitioner,
the reason that she and Mr. Wollow requested an extension for
filing the joint return was to give the bankruptcy court more
time to seize and distribute her IRA.
We do not see how petitioner reasonably could have expected
that her IRA would be used to satisfy the 1998 joint liability
when she had not authorized the IRA’s liquidation and
distribution. Moreover, because petitioner agreed to pay the
1998 joint liability with the proceeds from her IRA, petitioner
knew that Mr. Wollow would not pay it. This factor strongly
weighs against granting relief. See Washington v. Commissioner,
supra at 150.
The Spouses’ Legal Obligations
At trial, petitioner testified that, pursuant to the divorce
decree, both she and Mr. Wollow were “responsible for the joint
filed return and any community debts to be paid.” Petitioner
agrees, therefore, that under the decree she and Mr. Wollow share
the legal obligation for paying the 1998 joint liability.
Accordingly, this factor is neutral.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011