- 17 - D. Conclusion Respondent’s determination to deny petitioner relief under section 6015(f) was principally based on his findings that petitioner knew or had reason to know that the liability would not be paid, and that approximately 40 percent of the unpaid liability was attributable to petitioner. Since each of these findings was arbitrary and without sound basis in fact, we conclude that respondent’s denial of any relief was an abuse of discretion. Based on our review of all the facts and circumstances, we conclude that there are several factors favoring relief. Petitioner did not know, and had no reason to know, that the liability would not be paid; the underpayment is only attributable to petitioner to the extent of $900; petitioner and Ms. Wiest are divorced; and petitioner did not benefit from the underpayment. Weighing against relief is the absence of any showing of hardship if relief is not granted and the fact that a portion of the underpayment is attributable to petitioner. On balance, we find that the factors favoring relief, to the extent that the underpayment is not attributable to petitioner, outweigh the factors supporting a denial of relief. Therefore, we hold that petitioner is entitled to relief under section 6015(f) with respect to $3,162 of the underpayment; that is, he is entitled to relief with respect to all of the underpayment except the $900Page: 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