- 11 -
such an understatement.” Sec. 6015(b)(1)(C). Mrs. Chen’s claim
for relief under subsection (b) turns on whether she can prove
this.3 She argues that, despite her status as an officer of
PCTI, hers was only a clerical position giving her no
comprehension of what was happening when she signed corporate
checks and documents. She says that she just signed whatever Mr.
Chen or Ms. He gave her without asking questions. Mrs. Chen’s
limited English skill is a fact that would seem to support her
position.
But the regulations interpreting subsection (b) direct us to
look at “all of the facts and circumstances.” Sec. 1.6015-2(c),
Income Tax Regs. And there are other facts weighing against
relief. Perhaps most damning is Mrs. Chen’s admission of guilt
in committing wire fraud, filing a false tax return, and aiding
and abetting her husband to launder money. Mrs. Chen’s plea
agreement, which she signed, specifically indicated that she
“acted with a specific intent to commit fraud.” Even though Mrs.
Chen is not as well educated as her husband, she was too deeply
involved to be characterized as playing an unsuspecting dupe in
his fraud. We also do not give much weight to Mrs. Chen’s
inability to communicate in English. PCTI’s office was staffed
3 Petitioners have the burden of proof under section
6015(b), but need only persuade us by a preponderance of the
evidence rather than that the Commissioner abused his discretion.
See Haltom v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-209.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011