- 64 -
is no more than $6,220 (increased by interest). We fail to see
how respondent’s finding that petitioner would suffer no economic
hardship if relief were denied runs afoul of the majority’s
recitation of the abuse of discretion standard: “arbitrary,
capricious, clearly unlawful, or without sound basis in fact or
law.”15 Majority op. p. 14.
With respect to petitioner’s knowledge, the majority
contradicts respondent’s finding that, when petitioner signed the
1995 return, she knew or had reason to know that Mr. Wiwi would
not pay the tax for 1995, and that it was not reasonable for
petitioner to believe that Mr. Wiwi would pay the tax. The
majority finds: “Mr. Wiwi told petitioner * * * that he would
pay the unpaid 1995 tax as provided in a proposed installment
agreement that he submitted with their 1995 income tax return.”
Majority op. p. 4. In finding that petitioner reasonably
believed that Mr. Wiwi would pay the tax owed, the majority
states:
Mr. Wiwi concealed from petitioner until 1998 that he
had failed to pay the unpaid 1995 tax. During those
years petitioner did not know and had no reason to know
of Mr. Wiwi’s failure to pay that tax. This fit his
pattern of deception; Mr. Wiwi had also concealed from
her that he owed tax for 1993 and 1994. Respondent
15 Petitioner’s first lawyer even admitted in his first
meeting with respondent’s Appeals Office that his client would
not suffer economic hardship were relief not granted. Ex. 10-R
at 113.
Page: Previous 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011