- 48 -
We find the instant record to be materially distinguishable
from Bokum v. Commissioner, supra. In Bokum, we found that the
requesting spouse should have been alerted by the tax return
preparer’s failure to sign the tax return in question. Id. at
148. In contrast, we have found herein that the 1982 joint tax
return was signed by a return preparer and that the signature of
the return preparer on that return indicated to petitioner that
such return was prepared accurately. Moreover, in Bokum, we
found that at the time the requesting spouse signed the return in
question she was aware of the sale of a ranch, the tax treatment
of which was at issue, and that a cursory review of the tax
return would have brought to the requesting spouse’s attention
the distribution resulting from that sale as well as the tax
treatment of that distribution. Id. at 146-147. In contrast, we
have found herein that at the time petitioner signed the 1982
joint tax return she was not even aware of Mr. Korchak’s Madison
Recycling investment. We have also found (1) that there was
nothing about the claimed $58,089 Madison Recycling loss that
would have made it stand out in relationship to the other part-
nership losses claimed in the 1982 joint tax return and (2) that
it was not obvious from reviewing Form 3468 included as part of
the 1982 joint tax return that $57,750 of the claimed $59,835
investment tax credit was attributable to Madison Recycling and
that the claimed $56,657 business energy investment tax credit
Page: Previous 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011