- 23 -
forth in section 4.03(1)(b) of Revenue Procedure 2000-15, peti-
tioner concedes that that factor is not present in the instant
case.
With respect to the abuse positive factor set forth in
section 4.03(1)(c) of Revenue Procedure 2000-15, petitioner
concedes that that factor is not present in the instant case.
With respect to the knowledge or reason to know positive
factor set forth in section 4.03(1)(d) of Revenue Procedure 2000-
15, the parties disagree over whether that factor is present in
the instant case. Petitioner argues that the knowledge or reason
to know positive factor is present. In support of that argument,
petitioner asserts on brief:
Petitioner has stated that during the spouses’
[petitioner’s and Mr. Simon’s] 33 year marriage, she
[petitioner] never had opportunity to examine the tax
returns prior to filing, and that she completely relied
upon Mr. Simon to handle the couple’s tax matters. She
has consistently stated that on the evening of the
filing deadline, Mr. Simon always hurriedly presented a
completed return to Petitioner for her immediate signa-
ture and, upon that signature, hurried to the post
office to affect a timely mailing. This position * * *
is clearly stated as part of the administrative record.
Petitioner stated this same position at trial. Fur-
ther, the same position, regarding, in general, the
couple’s filing habit, was supported by Mr. Simon in
his testimony at trial.
Finally, Respondent, in its determination, even
relied upon that same position [of petitioner] as its
own basis for determining that Petitioner should have
known of the liability. In fact, as part of Respon-
dent’s administrative record, the Tax Examiner actually
stated that Petitioner did not examine the return. The
Tax Examiner did not even consider whether Petitioner
actually inquired of payment of the tax. Instead, the
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011