- 7 -
Respondent's position is that petitioner is not entitled to
relief from joint and several liability because she failed to
establish that she had a reasonable belief that the tax was paid
or going to be paid at the time she signed the return.
Respondent also argues that petitioner would not suffer from
economic hardship as a result of being denied relief. Lastly,
there was no evidence of abuse to sustain any relief from joint
and several liability.
Petitioner argues that she is entitled to relief from joint
and several liability because Mr. Pierce did not take care of the
finances properly, forged her signature, and subjected her to
emotional abuse. She also argues that she trusted her husband
and had no reason to know or assume that he might not pay their
tax liability.
Discussion
Pursuant to section 6330, petitioner sought relief from
respondent’s notice of determination sustaining the proposed levy
action. Section 6330 allows a taxpayer to raise appropriate
spousal defenses under section 6015. Sec. 6330(c)(I)(A)(i); sec.
301.6330-1(e)(2), Proced. & Admin. Regs. The Court's
jurisdiction in this case, therefore, is based on section
6015(e)(1). Raymond v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 191 (2002); sec.
301.6330-1(f)(2), Q&A-F2, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
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