- 13 -
eligible for relief from joint and several liability under either
section 6015(b) or (c). In any event, she would not satisfy the
requirements for such relief, as shown by our discussion, infra,
of the knowledge and attribution factors.
Equitable Relief Under Section 6015(f)
Because petitioner is not eligible for relief from joint and
several liability under either section 6015(b) or (c), we review
the 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
respondent’s determination unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or
without sound basis in fact. Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C.
106, 125 (2002) (citing Butler v. Commissioner, supra at 292;
Pac. First Fed. Sav. Bank v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 117, 121
(1993)), affd. __ F.3d __ (10th Cir., Dec. 30, 2003). The
question of whether respondent’s determination was arbitrary,
capricious, or without sound basis in fact is a question of fact.
Cheshire v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 183, 198 (2000), affd. 282
F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2002). We are not limited to the matters
contained in respondent’s administrative record when deciding
this question. Ewing v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. __, __ (2004)
(slip op. at 6-21). Petitioner bears the burden of proving that
respondent abused his discretion in denying relief under section
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011