First, he would be considered to have reason to know of M's income because he knew of the source or activity generating it (in fact, he helped M account for the income in prior years).
A does have reason to know of the income but this does not disqualify A's eligibility for relief (as with traditional relief), because it is only one negative factor to be considered along with all other factors.
A taxpayer is deemed to have knowledge of an omission if a reasonably prudent person could be expected to know of it.
The fact that by signing the returns she avoided additional abuse did not qualify as duress because she did not know of an error on the return that would cause her to fear signing it.
Bantle said he did know of this report, but hadn't read it.
My question was didn't you just tell the jury that you didn't know of anybody in the company that knew more than nothing about carcinogens?
And I got this telephone call from the doctor, saying that his [blood] pressure had continued to drop, but they would keep giving him medicine to bring it back up, he said, "But we have given him the last thing that we know of
," he said, "and if it drops this time, there's nothing more that we can do.
Men were less likely to know of domestic abuse than women, as were retirees compared with full-time workers.
People who know of abuse, who hear it happen next door or (who hear it from others), they definitely can help,'' Fisher said.
The requesting spouse established that at the time that the return was signed, he had no knowledge or reason to know of a tax understatement;
6015(b), that the requesting spouse had no knowledge or reason to know of a tax understatement at the time the taxpayers filed the joint return, was considered by the Tax Court in Butler, 114 TC 276 (2000).
The innocent spouse must establish that, in signing the return, he or she did not know of, and had no reason to know of, the omission.
However, in a similar case, the Eleventh Circuit sided with the Tax Court in determining a wife had reason to know of a substantial understatement and did not qualify for innocent spouse treatment.
In Stevens, the Eleventh Circuit listed four criteria, based on numerous prior cases, to determine whether a spouse had reason to know of the substantial understatement: (1) level of education, (2) involvement in the family's finances, (3) presence of expenditures that appear lavish or unusual when compared to the family's past level of income, standard of living and spending patterns; and (4) the culpable spouse's evasiveness and deceit concerning the family finances.
Thus, should a spouse have reason to know of a substantial understatement if the other spouse is not evasive but she is not involved with the family finances?