- 17 -
has a legal obligation pursuant to a divorce decree or agreement to
pay the unpaid liability. In addition, Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec.
4.03, 2000-1 C.B. at 448-449, states: “No single factor will be
determinative of whether equitable relief will or will not be
granted in any particular case. Rather, all factors will be
considered and weighed appropriately.” Furthermore, the list of
aforementioned factors is not intended to be exhaustive.
In deciding whether respondent’s determination that petitioner
is not entitled to relief under section 6015(f) was an abuse of
discretion, we consider evidence relating to all the facts and
circumstances.
With regard to the case herein, respondent acknowledges that
the following two factors weigh in favor of granting relief to
petitioner: Petitioner is divorced, and the liability for which
relief is sought is attributable to petitioner’s former husband.
Respondent contends: (1) Petitioner knew or had reason to
know that her 1989 income tax was not paid at the time the return
was filed; (2) petitioner was not abused by her former husband; (3)
petitioner’s former husband did not have a legal obligation under
the divorce decree to pay the unpaid 1989 tax liability; and (4)
petitioner would not experience an economic hardship if she is not
relieved from the liability. Respondent asserts that these factors
weigh against granting relief to petitioner. We disagree with
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011