Nora Aranda - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          excess of that already allowed.                                             
               Relying solely on an interpretation of respondent’s notice             
          of determination, petitioner argues on brief that she is entitled           
          to additional relief under section 6015(b).  Her arguments are              
          confusing but appear to be as follows:  (1) Respondent has                  
          already determined in his notice of determination that petitioner           
          met all of the requirements for relief from joint and several               
          liability under section 6015(b) with respect to a portion of the            
          1985 and 1996 tax liabilities; (2) as a result, we should                   
          interpret respondent’s notice of determination as granting                  
          partial relief from the actual tax liability in the amounts                 
          indicated, which would then reduce petitioner’s liability for the           
          additions to tax and interest proportionately; and (3) the notice           
          of determination does not state that it is only granting relief             
          from the additions to tax for fraud and related interest nor does           
          it mention section 6653(b).  We reject petitioner’s arguments.              
          Although the notice of determination is ambiguous regarding the             
          nature of, and basis for, respondent’s determination that                   
          petitioner is entitled to partial relief from joint and several             
          liability for the 1985 and 1986 assessments, the notice of                  
          determination is clear that respondent granted petitioner partial           
          relief only.  Regardless of how we interpret respondent’s notice            
          of determination, petitioner had an obligation to demonstrate               








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011