Susan L. Castle - Page 21




                                       - 21 -                                         
          for relief relates), respondent points to the fact that peti-               
          tioner did not timely file petitioner’s 1994 return as an indica-           
          tion that she did not make a good faith effort to comply with the           
          tax laws in at least 1 taxable year following the taxable year to           
          which petitioner’s request for relief related.  Park v. Commis-             
          sioner, 25 F.3d 1289, 1299 (5th Cir. 1994), affg. T.C. Memo.                
          1993-252.  Petitioner gave no explanation as to why she filed               
          petitioner’s 1994 return more than 1 year past the due date for             
          filing that return.  On the record before us, we find that                  
          petitioner has failed to carry her burden of establishing that              
          the negative factor set forth in section 4.03(2)(e) of Revenue              
          Procedure 2000-15 is not present in the instant case.                       
               On the record before us, we find that petitioner has failed            
          to carry her burden of establishing any other factors that weigh            
          in favor of granting relief under section 6015(f) and that are              
          not set forth in sections 4.02(1) and 4.03(1) of Revenue Proce-             
          dure 2000-15.                                                               
               Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,             
          we find that petitioner has failed to carry her burden of showing           
          that respondent abused respondent’s discretion in denying her               
          relief under section 6015(f) with respect to the unpaid 1993                
          liability.                                                                  
               We have considered all of petitioner’s arguments and conten-           
          tions which are not discussed herein, and we find them to be                






Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011