- 11 -
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-151.2 We conclude that this factor
favors petitioner.
3. Compliance With Tax Laws
Respondent first contends in respondent’s posttrial brief
that petitioner is not in compliance with Federal income tax laws
and that this weighs against relief. Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec.
4.03(2)(e), 2000-1 C.B. at 449. Respondent also first alleges on
brief that petitioner is in arrears on her tax obligations for
1983 because she failed to make $100 monthly payments for
December 1997; February, June, July, August, and December 1998;
February, March, April, September, October, and December 1999;
and January, February, March, April, May, June, and July 2000.
2 Cases deciding whether a taxpayer was entitled to
equitable relief under sec. 6013(e)(1)(D) are helpful in deciding
whether a taxpayer is entitled to relief under sec. 6015(f).
Mitchell v. Commissioner, 292 F.3d 800, 806 (D.C. Cir. 2002)
(“Subsection (f) has no statutory antecedent as a stand alone
provision, but has roots in the equity test of former
subparagraph 6013(e)(1)(D) carried forward into subparagraph
6015(b)(1)(D).”), affg. T.C. Memo. 2000-332. In Cheshire v.
Commissioner, 282 F.3d 326, 338 n.29 (5th Cir. 2002), affg. 115
T.C. 183 (2000), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
said:
Because the wording of � 6015(f)(1) is virtually
identical to that of former � 6013(e)(1)(D), case law
construing former � 6013(e)(1)(D) is helpful in
determining whether the Commissioner abused his
discretion in denying equitable relief to Appellant
under current � 6015(f)(1). See Butler, 114 T.C. at
291 (applying the � 6013(e)(1)(D) standard to a
� 6015(f) inquiry because ‘the language of sec.
6015(f)(1) does not differ significantly from the
language of former sec. 6013(e)(1)(D)’).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011