Donald J. Barnes and Beverly A. Edwards, f.k.a. Beverly A. Barnes - Page 44

                                       - 44 -                                         
          affd. 353 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2003).  A taxpayer bears the                 
          burden of proving that the Commissioner abused his discretion.              
          Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 137, 146 (2003).                       
               Pursuant to section 6015(f), the Commissioner has prescribed           
          procedures to determine whether a taxpayer qualifies for relief             
          under that section.  Those procedures are set forth in Rev. Proc.           
          2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447.  This Court has upheld the use of those           
          procedures in reviewing a negative determination for relief from            
          joint and several liability.  Jonson v. Commissioner, supra.                
               Section 4.01 of Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. at 448,                
          lists seven threshold conditions that must be satisfied before              
          the Commissioner will consider a request for relief under section           
          6015(f).  If the threshold conditions are satisfied, relief may             
          be granted under section 4.02 of Rev. Proc. 2000-15, which                  
          applies to relief from liability that is reported on a joint                
          return but that remains unpaid.  If that section does not apply,            
          the Commissioner looks to section 4.03 of Rev. Proc. 2000-15 to             
          determine whether the taxpayer should be granted relief.  In this           
          case, respondent does not assert that petitioner has failed to              
          meet any of the threshold requirements of section 4.01 of Rev.              
          Proc. 2000-15.  Because the liability in question was not                   
          reported on the joint return, section 4.02 of Rev. Proc. 2000-15            
          is not applicable in this case.  We therefore turn to section               







Page:  Previous  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011