- 8 - On December 6, 2002, we filed petitioner’s timely petition seeking review of respondent’s determination pursuant to section 6015(e). In the petition, petitioner alleged, in pertinent part, that respondent erred in concluding that petitioner did not qualify for relief under section 6015(c) and that “Respondent made no effort to prove, and failed to prove, that Petitioner had actual knowledge of the factual circumstances which made the tax items unallowable as a deduction.” As she did in her initial request for relief and her administrative appeal, petitioner included an extensive recitation of the facts on which she relied to support her allegations, including the following: p. Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Owen had actual knowledge of the underlying problems with the transactions, nor could they have discovered that Jay Hoyt failed to transfer title to livestock to the partnership and that he was otherwise converting partnership assets. * * * * * * * q. Due to the complexity of Jay Hoyt’s fraud, it was impossible for either Petitioner or Mr. Owen to discover the true nature of the transactions. r. Mr. Owen and all other Hoyt investors were deceived by Jay Hoyt as to the nature of their investment and were ultimately determined by a court of law to be victims of his elaborate fraud. On February 27, 2003, we filed respondent’s answer in which he denied each of petitioner’s allegations of error. Respondent also denied petitioner’s representations in subparagraphs p. andPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011