E. Carolyn Mellen - Page 25




                                                - 25 -                                                  
            We need not resolve the foregoing dispute between the parties.                              
            That is because, based upon our examination of the entire record                            
            in this case, including petitioner’s additional information that                            
            is part of the record established at trial, we find that peti-                              
            tioner 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 taxable year 1995.22                                        
                  We initially address certain of the arguments that peti-                              
            tioner advances on brief, all of which we find to be without                                
            merit.  To illustrate, petitioner argues on brief that                                      
                  a ruling in favor of the spouse [petitioner] does not                                 
                  mean the tax debt is forgiven or that it will never be                                
                  paid.  It only means that based upon the present facts                                
                  and circumstances, it is not equitable to compel the                                  
                  requesting spouse [petitioner] to pay the tax debt in                                 
                  full at this time. * * * If an economic hardship is                                   
                  present, then Congress has declared that the present                                  
                  collection of the tax is to be suspended as to the                                    

                  21(...continued)                                                                      
            mining whether respondent abused respondent’s discretion in                                 
            denying that relief, we would give whatever weight we consider                              
            appropriate to the evidence to which respondent objected.                                   
                  22In so holding, we have considered petitioner’s contention                           
            that respondent did not fulfill what petitioner claims was                                  
            respondent’s responsibility to investigate and ascertain during                             
            the administrative consideration of petitioner’s request for                                
            relief under sec. 6015(f) all of the facts and circumstances with                           
            respect to petitioner’s claim for equitable relief under sec.                               
            6015(f).  Regardless of whether or not petitioner’s contention                              
            has any merit, petitioner had the opportunity at trial to intro-                            
            duce admissible evidence into the record that established all of                            
            the facts which she claims respondent had a duty to investigate                             
            and ascertain and on which she relies in order to show that                                 
            respondent abused respondent’s discretion in denying her relief                             
            under sec. 6015(f).                                                                         





Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011