Gwendolyn A. Ewing - Page 68

                                       - 68 -                                         
         applicable where a taxpayer claims equitable relief under that               
         section.  If a taxpayer seeking relief under section 6015(f) does            
         not raise a matter with, or present sufficient information to,               
         respondent’s Appeals Office and if, after reasonable inquiry,                
         respondent’s Appeals Office has been unable to ascertain such                
         matter or sufficient information that would support such relief,             
         it would be improper for the Court to permit the taxpayer to                 
         present such matter or such information at trial.  Moreover, it              
         would be illogical and inappropriate for the Court to conclude in            
         such circumstances that respondent abused respondent’s discretion            
         in denying relief under section 6015(f).                                     
              With respect to the majority opinion’s holding that                     
         petitioners are entitled to equitable relief under section                   
         6015(f), the majority opinion purports to have applied an abuse-             
         of-discretion standard in reaching that holding.  I do not                   
         believe that the majority opinion has in fact applied such a                 
         standard in the instant case.  Instead, the majority opinion,                
         based upon evidence introduced at trial, has substituted the                 
         judgment of the majority for the judgment of respondent.  In so              
         doing, the majority opinion offers no explanations about why the             
         conclusions of respondent’s Appeals Office as to the effect of               
         the presence or the absence of certain factors set forth in Rev.             
         Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447, constitute an abuse of discretion            
         by respondent.                                                               
              FOLEY, J., agrees with this dissenting opinion.                         




Page:  Previous  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  

Last modified: May 25, 2011