- 8 -
In the instant case, the revenue agents found that almost
all of factors listed in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, secs. 4.02 and 4.03,
either weighed in petitioner’s favor or were not applicable.
Despite the abundance of positive factors, petitioner’s claim for
equitable relief was denied. On brief, respondent argues that
petitioner knew or had reason to know at the time the returns
were filed that the tax liabilities would not be paid. The
revenue agents’ reports indicate that relief was not granted
because they believed that petitioner was equally responsible for
the underpayments because of inadequate withholding.
Petitioner argues that Mr. Foor had complete control over
their finances during the years in issue. She claims that he
assured her that the balances were paid and that he intercepted
any correspondence from respondent. Petitioner contends that she
did not discover the unpaid balances until after the marriage was
dissolved.
Petitioner credibly testified that she believed that Mr.
Foor would pay their tax liabilities. Despite this belief, we
cannot say that the revenue agents acted unreasonably in
determining that petitioner had reason to know at the time the
returns were signed that the tax liabilities would not be paid.
Petitioner signed the returns for all years in issue, and these
returns showed a balance due after allowance for the Federal
income taxes withheld during the years. Thus, she should have
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011