- 26 -
financial matters, we conclude that petitioner did not have
knowledge about the purported wages reported in her name from
Premium Fresh Juice.
A taxpayer may be charged with constructive knowledge of the
content of a return even when he or she signs an original return
without reviewing or understanding its contents. Hayman v.
Commissioner, 992 F.2d 1256, 1262 (2d Cir. 1993), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1992-228; Levin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-67. The
appropriate standard to be applied in determining whether a
taxpayer has constructive knowledge is whether a reasonable
person under the circumstances of the taxpayer at the time of
signing the return could be expected to know. Terzian v.
Commissioner, 72 T.C. 1164, 1170 (1979); Levin v. Commissioner,
supra.15 As we stated earlier, petitioner was unsophisticated in
regard to financial matters, and she had a limited proficiency in
English. She frequently signed documents at the request of Mr.
Bennett without understanding what she was signing. We do not
believe that petitioner willingly turned a blind eye to the
contents of her return, but rather that she was not in a position
to understand the return and trusted Mr. Bennett to prepare
accurate returns on her behalf.
Finally, we conclude that the Form W-2 issued to petitioner
from Columbia Cleaning did not provide petitioner with knowledge
15 See supra note 13 and accompanying text.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011