- 30 - these requirements. We consider only the second of these three subparagraphs because we agree with respondent that its requirements have not been met. We conclude that Ms. Ford knew or had reason to know of the 1986 underpayment at the time she signed the return so as to be precluded from receiving her requested relief under section 6015(b). Credible evidence shows that Ms. Ford was intimately involved in the convoluted financial transactions which transpired in 1986, that she played a crucial role in the utilization of nominee corporations and brokerage accounts, and that she played a crucial role in the concealment of assets acquired in 1986, as previously discussed. The previously discussed inconsistencies in her testimony, piled one upon the next, also make her testimony not credible to the Court. ______________________________ All of the parties’ arguments have been considered. We have rejected as meritless those not discussed herein. Accordingly, Decision will be entered under Rule 155.Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Last modified: May 25, 2011