- 9 -
also held true with respect to the Bank One account. Even though
the account was opened in petitioner’s name and she, not
intervenor, had signatory authority, intervenor exercised
complete control over the account. He told petitioner what to
deposit into that account and when. He instructed petitioner to
sign blank checks, which he later filled in. Because of the
severity of the abuse, petitioner was under intervenor’s absolute
control, such that petitioner believed that if she disobeyed
intervenor’s instructions, her and her son’s lives would be in
jeopardy.
We find that, on the basis of intervenor’s control over
petitioner and all aspects of the businesses, he was the true
owner of the businesses. Our finding is consistent with the
Schedules C prepared by intervenor, on which he listed himself as
the sole proprietor of an unnamed engraving business in 2001 and
as the sole proprietor of Rocky Creations in 2002. Thus, all
items relating to the operation of the businesses, including the
understatement of gross receipts, are allocable to intervenor.
See sec. 1.6015-3(d)(2)(iii) and (iv), Income Tax Regs.
Even if the requesting spouse otherwise qualifies for relief
under section 6015(c), relief is not available if the
Commissioner demonstrates that the requesting spouse had actual
knowledge, at the time the return was signed, of any item giving
rise to a deficiency (or portion thereof). Sec. 6015(c)(3)(C);
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007