- 6 -
deficiency (or any portion of either); and
(2) relief is not available to such
individual under subsection (b) or (c),
the Secretary may relieve such individual of such
liability.
We review respondent’s denial of equitable relief to
petitioner under an abuse of discretion standard. Cheshire v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. at 198; Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C.
276, 292 (2000). Petitioner bears the burden of proving that
respondent’s denial of equitable relief under section 6015(f) was
an abuse of discretion. Rule 142(a); Alt v. Commissioner, 119
T.C. 306, 311 (2002); Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 113
(2002). Petitioner must demonstrate that respondent exercised
his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis
in fact or law. Jonson v. Commissioner, supra at 125; Woodral v.
Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).
As directed by section 6015(f), the Commissioner has
prescribed procedures to be used in determining whether the
requesting spouse qualifies for relief from joint and several
liability under section 6015(f). These procedures are set forth
in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447.2 Where, as is the case
here, the requesting spouse satisfies the threshold conditions
2 As relevant herein, Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 3, 2000-1
C.B. 447, 448, is applicable for any liability for tax arising on
or before July 22, 1998, that was unpaid on that date.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011