- 28 -
sufficient for us to deny relief pursuant to that section, we
need not decide or address whether petitioner satisfied the
requirements of section 6015(b)(1)(C) and (D). However, for the
sake of completeness, we conclude that petitioner did not meet
the requirements of section 6015(b)(1)(C) and (D) for the reasons
set forth in our analysis of section 6015(f), infra.
Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s determination to deny
petitioner relief from joint and several liability under section
6015(b)(1).
B. Section 6015(f)
Section 6015(f) provides an alternative means of relief for
a requesting spouse who does not otherwise qualify for relief
under subsection (b) or (c) of section 6015. Sec. 6015(f)(2).
We review the Commissioner’s determination to deny equitable
relief under section 6015(f) using an abuse of discretion
standard. Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 287-292. Under
this standard of review, we defer to the Commissioner’s
determination unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or without
sound basis in fact. Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 125
(2002), affd. 353 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2003). The question of
whether the Commissioner’s determination was an abuse of his
discretion is a question of fact. Cheshire v. Commissioner, 115
T.C. 183, 198 (2000), affd. 282 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2002). A
requesting spouse bears the burden of proving that the
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011