- 6 -
we review the Commissioner’s denial of such relief for an abuse
of his discretion. Cheshire v. Commissioner, supra at 198. The
Commissioner’s exercise of discretion is entitled to due
deference; in order to prevail, the taxpayer must demonstrate
that in not granting relief, the Commissioner exercised his
discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in
fact or law. Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999);
Mailman v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1079, 1082-1084 (1988).2
As directed by section 6015(f), the Commissioner has
prescribed procedures in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447,
that the Commissioner will use in determining whether an
individual qualifies for relief under that section. Rev. Proc.
2000-15, sec. 4.02, 2001-1 C.B. at 448, lists several conditions
which if met ordinarily will entail the granting of relief from
unpaid liabilities reported on a joint return. As applicable
here, these conditions are:
(a) At the time relief is requested, the requesting
spouse is no longer married to * * * the nonrequesting
spouse * * * ;
(b) At the time the return was signed, the
requesting spouse had no knowledge or reason to know
that the tax would not be paid. The requesting spouse
must establish that it was reasonable for the
2Respondent argues that, because the standard of review in
this case is one of abuse of discretion, “the record in this case
is limited to the administrative record, and the Court should not
allow any testimony.” Because of our holding in this case,
however, we need not address this argument further. See, e.g.,
Mellen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-280.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011