Eleanor Simon - Page 26

                                       - 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 had             





Page:  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