- 11 -
adequate to pay her tax liabilities, and she also testified that
if she had filed with a status of single, her withholding would
have exceeded her tax liabilities. The evidence in the record
indicates that she informed Mr. Petroff that she believed her
withholding was adequate to pay her tax liabilities.
Although a requesting spouse is not entitled to relief under
Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.02, for unpaid taxes attributable to
her, this does not foreclose her eligibility for equitable
relief. Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03, applies to requesting
spouses who satisfy the threshold conditions of Rev. Proc. 2000-
15, sec. 4.01, but do not qualify for relief under Rev. Proc.
2000-15, sec. 4.02. See Washington v. Commissioner, supra at
151; Collier v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-144. Additionally,
Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03(2)(a), 2000-1 C.B. at 449, provides
that whether an unpaid liability is attributable to the
requesting spouse is a factor to consider. Thus, Mr. Petroff’s
testimony indicates that he may have incorrectly applied the
revenue procedure in this case.3 Mr. Petroff’s testimony and
workpapers indicate that a significant reason for denying relief
3Rev. Proc. 2003-61, 2003-32 I.R.B. 296, which supersedes
Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447, effective for requests for
relief filed on or after Nov. 1, 2003, added an additional
threshold condition for relief, subject to certain exceptions,
that the income tax liability from which the requesting spouse
seeks relief must be attributable to an item of the nonrequesting
spouse. Rev. Proc. 2003-61, supra, does not apply in this case
because petitioner’s request for relief was filed before the
effective date.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011