- 8 -
v. Commissioner, supra at 198; Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C.
276, 292 (2000). Petitioner bears the burden of proving that
respondent’s denial of equitable relief under section 6015(f) was
an abuse of discretion. Rule 142(a); Alt v. Commissioner, 119
T.C. 306, 311 (2002); Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 113
(2002), affd. 353 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2003). Petitioner must
demonstrate that respondent exercised his discretion arbitrarily,
capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law. Jonson v.
Commissioner, supra at 125; Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19,
23 (1999).
As directed by section 6015(f), the Commissioner has
prescribed procedures to be used in determining whether the
requesting spouse qualifies for relief from joint and several
liability under section 6015(f). These procedures are set forth
in Revenue Procedure 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447 (the revenue
procedure).6 Where, as here, the requesting spouse satisfies the
threshold conditions,7 section 4.02(1) of the revenue procedure
sets forth the circumstances under which respondent ordinarily
will grant relief to that spouse under section 6015(f) in a case
like the instant case where a liability is reported on a joint
return but not paid. Subject to limitations not applicable here,
6 As relevant herein, Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 3, 2000-1
C.B. 447, 448, is applicable with respect to any liability for
tax arising after July 22, 1998, or any liability for tax arising
on or before July 22, 1998, that was unpaid on that date.
7 Respondent concedes that petitioner has satisfied the
threshold conditions of Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.01, supra.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011