- 22 -
present:11 (1) Petitioner was not separated or divorced from Mr.
Ellison, (2) petitioner will not suffer economic hardship if
relief is denied, (3) petitioner was not abused by Mr. Ellison,
(4) petitioner knew or had reason to know of the item giving rise
to the deficiency, (5) Mr. Ellison did not have an obligation to
pay the liability pursuant to a divorce decree, and (6) the items
giving rise to the deficiencies are not attributable solely to
Mr. Ellison. See Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 137, 147
(2003). Additionally, the following factors weighing against
relief are present:12 (1) The items giving rise to the
deficiencies are attributable to petitioner, (2) petitioner knew
11 We note that in her Appeals memorandum, Ms. Boak
considered the fact that petitioner and Mr. Ellison were still
married and living together, there was no abuse, and that there
was no legal obligation of the nonrequesting spouse to pay the
liability to be factors weighing against sec. 6015(f) relief.
This was incorrect--she should have treated them as neutral.
Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 137, 149 (2003). Ms.
Halbert, who initially reviewed the case, however, did not
consider the absence of these factors to weigh against granting
equitable relief.
It is unclear whether the notice of determination is based
on Ms. Halbert’s or Ms. Boak’s analysis. Regardless, neither
found any factors weighing in favor of relief to be present and
both found factors that properly weighed against relief to be
present. Accordingly, Ms. Boak’s mistake is not a basis for
finding that respondent abused his discretion.
12 The absence of certain factors weighing against
equitable relief does not weigh in favor of granting relief--they
are neutral. Doyel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-35; see
Washington v. Commissioner, supra at 149.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011