- 22 -
125; Butler v. Commissioner, supra at 292. The review of
respondent’s denial of petitioner’s request for relief under
section 6015(f) is a question of fact. Cheshire v. Commissioner,
supra at 198. Petitioner bears the burden of proving that
respondent abused his discretion. Washington v. Commissioner,
120 T.C. 137, 146 (2003); see also Alt v. Commissioner, 119 T.C.
at 311 (“Except as otherwise provided in section 6015, petitioner
bears the burden of proof.”); Jonson v. Commissioner, supra at
113 (same).
As directed by section 6015(f), respondent has prescribed
procedures to use in determining whether a relief-seeking spouse
qualifies for relief under section 6015(f). At the time that
petitioner filed her petition in this case, those procedures were
found in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447. Rev. Proc. 2000-
15, sec. 4.01, 2000-1 C.B. at 448, lists seven threshold
conditions that must be satisfied before respondent will consider
a request for relief under section 6015(f). The threshold
conditions include the following:
(5) No assets were transferred between the spouses
filing the joint return as part of a fraudulent scheme
by such spouses;
(6) There were no disqualified assets transferred
to the requesting spouse by the nonrequesting spouse.
If there were disqualified assets transferred to the
requesting spouse by the nonrequesting spouse, relief
will be available only to the extent that the liability
exceeds the value of such disqualified assets. For
this purpose, the term “disqualified asset” has the
meaning given such term by section 6015(c)(4)(B); * *
*
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011