- 20 -
for the money earned. When Mrs. Beatty became aware of
the amount of money her husband earned, she couldn’t
understand where the funds went. She then found out
that her husband had a problem with Keno gambling. He
lost their money and then became involved with loan
sharks to fund his addiction. Other than customary
basic living expenses the taxpayer did not derive a
significant benefit from the unpaid federal income
taxes.
DETERMINATION
We look to the court case of Alice Berger, et al. v.
Commissioner T.C. Memo. 1996-76, 71 TCM 2160. Alice
Berger asserts that the Chancery Court ordered her to
sign the 1988 return and that she signed it because she
believed she had no choice and was afraid of the “con-
sequences” of defying a court order. Although she
signed the return at the courthouse, she does not
appear to have been signed it before a judge who was
threatening improper or oppressive “consequences
against her. Alice Berger did not testify that the
Chancery Court had threatened “consequences” directly
to her. This court case demonstrates that signing a
return at the order of a Court because one is afraid of
the “consequences” of defying a court order does not
equal a showing of abuse of discretion or theat of
improper sanction sufficient to invalidate the return.
In Mrs. Beatty’s case, the court didn’t even ask her to
sign returns. The court didn’t abuse its authority and
did not force Mrs. Beatty to sign joint tax returns.
Another court case of interest is Hazel Stanley v.
Comm. 45 TC 555. Mrs. Stanley’s husband was very
domineering and sometimes violent. She would go along
with her husband in many situations simply to avoid
conflict. Mrs. Stanley signed joint returns as di-
rected by her husband. However, she failed to demon-
strate that she did so unwillingly and was found to be
jointly liable. Mrs. Beatty does not claim any undue
influence from her husband; however the important point
to note in this case is the “willingness” to file
jointly. Like Mrs. Stanley, Mrs. Beatty has not demon-
strated that she filed unwillingly.
Although it is unfortunate that Mrs. Beatty was not
aware of and was not informed of her options, ignorance
of the law is no excuse. Mrs. Beatty cannot be re-
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007