- 29 -
C. Section 6015(f)
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
Commissioner abused his discretion in denying her relief under
section 6015(f).
The parties agree that it is appropriate to consider whether
petitioner qualifies for relief under section 6015(f) even though
respondent has granted petitioner partial relief under section
6015(c). See Hopkins v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 73, 87 (2003).
However, the parties disagree as to whether it is inequitable to
hold petitioner liable for any portion of the deficiency under
section 6015(f). Therefore, we must decide whether respondent
abused his discretion in denying petitioner relief from joint and
several liability under section 6015(f). Cheshire v.
Commissioner, supra at 198; Butler v. Commissioner, supra at 292.
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011