- 5 -
of [sic] the taxpayer wife’s inadequate withholding.
Undue hardship—No known hardship.
* * * * * * *
Marital abuse—None known.
Spouse’s legal obligation to pay—Divorce decree
was read over the telephone to Agent. No mention of
Internal Revenue Service debt made.
Knowledge/reason to know–Understatement [sic] was
evident at the signing of the joint return. Taxpayer
husband would have had knowledge/reason to know of the
understatement [sic] at the time of signing. Taxpayer
husband states he does not remember signing the return.
States he would have paid if he had known of the
understatement [sic] and cites his paying back taxes
for 1995 and 1996 promptly as example.
Significant benefit--No known beyond normal
support.
Petitioner timely filed his petition on January 3, 2000.
OPINION
We must decide whether respondent abused his discretion in
denying relief under section 6015(f) with respect to an amount of
tax reported on petitioner’s joint return but not paid. We
review respondent’s determination for abuse of discretion, Butler
v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276 (2000), and we hold that respondent
abused his discretion because respondent’s determination was
arbitrary.
Section 6015(f) provides as follows:
Equitable Relief.--Under procedures prescribed by the
Secretary, if--
(1) taking into account all the facts
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011