- 29 -
B. Relief Under Section 6015(f)
Respondent argues that he did not abuse his discretion in
denying petitioner equitable relief under section 6015(f).
Respondent’s denial of relief is reviewed under an abuse of
discretion standard. Cheshire v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 183, 198
(2000), affd. 282 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2002); Butler v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 292 (2000). Our review is not
limited to respondent’s administrative record. Ewing v.
Commissioner, 122 T.C. 32 (2004).
As directed by sec. 6015(f), the Commissioner prescribed
procedures in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447,9 respondent
uses to determine whether an individual qualifies for relief
under section 6015(f).
1. Revenue Procedure Enumerated Factors
In this case, none of the six factors in Rev. Proc. 2000-15,
2000-1 C.B. 447, weighing in favor of granting relief are
present: (1) Petitioner was not separated or divorced from Mr.
Bartak, (2) petitioner will not suffer economic hardship if
relief is denied, (3) petitioner was not abused by Mr. Bartak,
(4) petitioner knew or had reason to know of the item giving rise
9 We note that Rev. Proc. 2003-61, 2003-32 I.R.B. 296 (Aug.
11, 2003), superseded Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447. Rev.
Proc. 2003-61, sec. 6, 2003-32 I.R.B. at 299. The new revenue
procedure, however, is effective for requests for relief filed on
or after Nov. 1, 2003. Id. Accordingly, it is inapplicable to
the case at bar.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011