Cynthia Emery Weight - Page 8

                                                - 8 -                                                   
            relief from that “penalty”.  As petitioner views the situation,                             
            she should not be liable for the “penalty” because her separate                             
            return was timely filed.  Petitioner points out that the untimely                           
            joint return was filed in accordance with the divorce decree4 and                           
            under the circumstances it would be unfair to subject her to the                            
            “penalty”.  According to petitioner, respondent’s refusal to                                
            grant her relief from that “penalty” is an abuse of discretion.                             
                  In order to establish that respondent’s denial of her                                 
            section 6015(f) claim for relief is an abuse of discretion, the                             
            evidence must demonstrate that in not granting relief, the                                  
            Commissioner exercised his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously,                            
            or without sound basis in law or fact.  Woodral v. Commissioner,                            
            112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).                                                                     
                  Petitioner was aware of the distribution and other pension                            
            withdrawals that resulted in the unpaid income tax liability                                
            reported on the joint return.  Proceeds from the distribution                               
            were deposited into her daughter’s saving account, which                                    
            petitioner controlled.  The distribution and other pension                                  
            withdrawals were used to purchase and pay the mortgage on                                   
            petitioner’s house.  The joint return was prepared by the same                              

                  4  Petitioner argues that the joint return is not valid                               
            because she did not make a “voluntary” election to file a                                   
            joint return with Mr. Weight.  We note that the argument is                                 
            inconsistent with a claim for relief under section 6015, see                                
            Raymond v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 191 (2002), and, under the                                
            circumstances, lacks sufficient merit to warrant further                                    

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011