- 16 -
both participated in the preparation of the return. They both
signed the jurat on the return yet remitted no payment on the
balance due at the time of filing. Petitioner was involved in
the family finances and the record keeping for Mr. Barber’s
business; she participated in the decision not to pay the taxes.
Rev. Proc. 2000-15, section 4.03(2)(b) provides that knowledge
that the liability would be unpaid is “an extremely strong factor
weighing against relief”. Her knowledge that the reported
liability would be unpaid also negates two positive factors
weighing in favor of relief: the “no knowledge or reason to
know” factor and the “legal obligation” factor. Rev. Proc. 2000-
15, sec. 4.03(1)(d) and (e), 2000-1 C.B. at 449.
Further weighing against relief, roughly half of the unpaid
liability is attributable to petitioner. To be a factor weighing
in favor of relief, the liability must be “solely” attributable
to the nonrequesting spouse. Id. sec. 4.03(1)(f). By contrast,
the unpaid liability being attributable (but not solely so) to
the requesting spouse weighs against relief. Id. sec.
4.03(2)(a). Moreover, the Court did not find petitioner’s
allegation of abuse by Mr. Barber to be credible, and petitioner
did not establish economic hardship.5 Given these facts and
5 Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.02(1)(c), 2000-1 C.B. 447,
448, provides that the determination of whether a requesting
spouse will suffer economic hardship will be made by the
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011