- 26 - At best for petitioner, the knowledge of payment factor is neutral in the analysis due to petitioner’s claimed ignorance that any tax was owed. * * * [Repro- duced literally.] We turn first to petitioner’s reliance on Wiest v. Commis- sioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-91. That case is materially distinguish- able from the instant case. In Wiest, the taxpayer took the position before the IRS and the Court that he relied on his spouse to file the return in question and to pay the tax shown due in that return and that he was unaware that she had not. In contrast, in the instant case, petitioner took the position before the IRS, and takes the position before the Court, that at the time she signed the 1998 return she did not know that that return showed tax due and that therefore at that time she could not have known that Mr. Simon would not pay any such tax. Thus, unlike the taxpayer in Wiest, petitioner did not claim before the IRS, and does not claim before the Court, that she relied on Mr. Simon to pay the tax shown due in the 1998 return. In addition, unlike the instant case, in Wiest, the Court found that the spouse of the taxpayer deceived the taxpayer with respect to the filing of the return in question and the payment of the tax shown due in that return. Moreover, unlike the instant case, in Wiest, the IRS based its determination that the taxpayer was not enti- tled to relief under section 6015(f) principally on its conclu- sions that the unpaid liability in question was not solely attributable to the taxpayer’s spouse and that the taxpayer hadPage: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011