- 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
consideration.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011