- 17 -
supported by evidence but in no way appears to have affected the
reporting of items on the return and does not outweigh the fact
that petitioner had an affirmative duty to evaluate and check the
return. Although the return was sent without payment, it
correctly reported petitioner's and Mr. Pierce's tax liability.
Taking into account all of the facts and circumstances, it
would not be inequitable to hold petitioner liable for the
underpayment in question. Consequently, respondent's denial of
petitioner's request for equitable relief under section 6015(f)
is not an abuse of discretion. Based on the facts and
circumstances in this case, many of the factors in Rev. Proc.
2000-15, sec. 4.03, 2001-C.B. at 448, are neutral. The negative
factors discussed above outweigh any positive factors in favor of
relief. Based on the record before this Court, we do not find
respondent's denial of section 6015 relief to be arbitrary,
capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law.
The Court has considered all of the other arguments made by
petitioner, and, to the extent they remain unaddressed, concludes
they are without merit. We hold that respondent correctly
determined that collection by levy should proceed.
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Last modified: May 25, 2011