- 6 -
3. Section 6015(f)
Since petitioner is not entitled to relief under section
6015(b) or (c), we consider whether petitioner qualifies for
relief under section 6015(f), after a trial de novo and using an
abuse of discretion standard. See Ewing v. Commissioner, 122
T.C. __ (2004); Fernandez v. Commissioner, supra at 328-329;
Butler v. Commissioner, supra at 287-292. Petitioner bears the
burden of proving that respondent’s denial of equitable relief
under section 6015(f) was an abuse of discretion. See Rule
142(a); Alt v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 306, 311 (2002).
Petitioner must demonstrate that respondent exercised his
discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in
fact or law. See Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 125
(2002), affd. 353 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2003); Woodral v.
Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).
As directed by section 6015(f), the Commissioner has
prescribed procedures for determining whether a spouse qualifies
for relief under subsection (f). The applicable provisions are
found in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447.1 We have upheld
1 This revenue procedure was superseded by Rev. Proc. 2003-
61, 2003-32 I.R.B. 296, which is effective either for requests
for relief filed on or after Nov. 1, 2003, or for requests for
relief pending on Nov. 1, 2003, for which no preliminary
determination letter has been issued as of Nov. 1, 2003. Id.
sec. 7, 2003-32 I.R.B. at 299.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011