- 19 -
petitioner, and to confirm that no assets had been transferred
between petitioner and Mr. Bulger as part of a fraudulent scheme.
Respondent also argues that although the facts available to him
when the answer was filed indicated that the partnership
investments were made jointly, the deficiencies at issue could
not be allocated between petitioner and Mr. Bulger under section
6015(d) because the parties disagreed about whether and to what
extent the investment in SGE was attributable to petitioner.
Respondent’s argument that he lacked sufficient information
to accept petitioner’s representations regarding section 6015(c)
and that the lack of information was somehow petitioner’s fault
is unsupported by the record for purposes of this motion. In
petitioner’s statement of disagreement dated September 14, 2001,
appealing the Service’s denial of relief under section 6015,
petitioner stated that she had no knowledge or reason to know of
the true nature of the investment or that the deductions were
erroneous, and she provided respondent with a detailed statement
in support of her request for relief under section 6015.14 On
April 10, 2002, in a letter supplementing her appeal, petitioner
reiterated that she was not involved in the partnership
transactions and “certainly had no substantive knowledge of the
14A party’s statement, if credible, is evidence on which the
finder of fact may rely to establish a relevant fact. In this
case, there is nothing in the record to suggest that petitioner’s
statement regarding her lack of actual knowledge was not
credible.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011