- 24 -
of either). In the instant case, petitioner sought but was denied
relief under section 6015(f). Petitioner maintains that
respondent’s refusal to grant relief to her was arbitrary,
capricious, and without sound basis in fact.
Respondent acknowledges that we have jurisdiction to review
his denial of innocent spouse relief under section 6015(f). See
Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276 (2000); Fernandez v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 324 (2000); Charlton v. Commissioner, 114
T.C. 333 (2000). We review respondent’s denial of equitable relief
to petitioner under an abuse of discretion standard. See Butler v.
Commissioner, supra at 292; Mailman v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1079,
1083 (1988); Estate of Gardner v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 989, 1000
(1984). This is a question of fact. See Hospital Corp. of Am. v.
Commissioner, 81 T.C. 520, 594 (1983); Foster v. Commissioner, 80
T.C. 34, 160, 178 (1983), affd. in part and revd. in part on
another ground 756 F.2d 1430 (9th Cir. 1985).
Petitioner’s claim for innocent spouse relief was initiated in
her petition to this Court. Prior to trial, respondent conceded
that petitioner was entitled to relief with respect to certain
items omitted from the 1992 joint return and was not liable for the
section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax. Presumably before doing so,
respondent followed standard procedures by reviewing his
administrative files and considered petitioner’s contentions.
Respondent opposes petitioner’s claim for equitable relief
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011