- 28 -
and (3) legal obligation of Mr. Simon to pay such liability. On
the record before us, we find that petitioner’s reliance on Wiest
v. Commissioner, supra, is misplaced. On that record, we reject
petitioner’s arguments in reliance on that case.
We turn now to whether petitioner has carried her burden of
establishing that the knowledge or reason to know positive factor
is present in the instant case. In support of her position for
relief under section 6015(f), petitioner chose to present her
case to the IRS and to the Court by claiming that she did not
know and had no reason to know that there was tax shown due in
the 1998 return. Petitioner must bear the consequences of that
choice. On the record before us, we have serious reservations
about petitioner’s contention that she did not know that the 1998
return showed tax due because she was “hurried” when she signed
that return. Nonetheless, assuming arguendo that we were to
accept such a contention, on the instant record, we find that, by
signing the 1998 return, petitioner is charged with constructive
knowledge of, inter alia, the tax shown due in that return. See
Park v. Commissioner, 25 F.3d 1289, 1299 (5th Cir. 1994), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1993-252; see also Hayman v. Commissioner, 992 F.2d
1256, 1262 (2d Cir. 1993), affg. T.C. Memo. 1992-228. Having
found that at the time petitioner signed the 1998 return she had
constructive knowledge of the tax shown due in that return, we
further find that petitioner should have inquired about whether
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011