- 9 -
Petitioner offered extensive testimony regarding her lack of
knowledge about the source of intervenor’s inheritance; however,
intervenor also offered extensive testimony that petitioner knew
the exact nature of his inheritance. As a result of the
conflicting testimony, and the lack of documentation supporting
either testimony, the Court finds neither party’s testimony
credible. To determine whether petitioner had actual knowledge
of the pension distribution to intervenor, the Court looks beyond
the testimony of petitioner and intervenor and relies principally
on the stipulation of facts and the admitted evidence.
Petitioner and intervenor filed their 1996 joint Federal
income tax return with the assistance of a tax preparer at H&R
Block. On Line 16(a) of Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax
Return, the tax return listed $5,220 as “Gross Pension/Annuity
Amount” and then listed $220 as the “Taxable Pension/Annuity
Amount”. Regardless of whether petitioner was present during the
return preparation to discuss the pension distribution, she
nonetheless willingly signed the return, and a simple review of
the return would have alerted petitioner to the existence of a
pension distribution.4 Petitioner contends she signed the return
4Petitioner and intervenor’s testimony as to whether
petitioner was present while their tax return was being prepared
is contradictory. Petitioner testified she was at work while
intervenor met with the H&R Block representative; however,
intervenor testified she was present the entire time the return
was being prepared.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011