- 34 -
With respect to the knowledge or reason to know positive
factor set forth in section 4.03(1)(d) of Revenue Procedure 2000-
15, petitioner does not dispute that that positive factor is not
present in the instant case. Instead, she argues that that
factor is “legally irrelevant” to determining whether she is
entitled to equitable relief under section 6015(f). We disagree.
We find that whether a spouse requesting relief under section
6015(f) knew or had reason to know of the item giving rise to a
deficiency is a relevant factor in determining whether such
spouse is entitled to such relief.
With respect to the legal obligation positive factor set
forth in section 4.03(1)(e) of Revenue Procedure 2000-15, on the
record before us, we find this factor to be a neutral factor in
the instant case. That is because at all relevant times peti-
tioner and Mr. Mellen were married.
With respect to the attribution positive factor set forth in
section 4.03(1)(f) of Revenue Procedure 2000-15, petitioner
contends that that positive factor is present in this case
because “It was Craig Mellen’s activities (i.e. the fire and the
subsequent explosion) that generated a casualty loss.” We agree
with petitioner. The claimed casualty loss deduction of $30,930
in the 1995 joint return is the item that gave rise to the
deficiency for 1995 (and the resulting unpaid liability for
1995), and that claimed deduction was attributable to the July
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011