- 11 -
no reason to know that the liability would not be paid. Neither
petitioner nor intervenor knew they were not entitled to a refund
for 1999 until they received notice from respondent. Despite the
conflict in the evidence, it appears that petitioner had the four
Forms W-2 that were filed with the return, and so he had reason
to know that the amount reported withheld was in error. We
conclude that petitioner had reason to know of the underpayment,
and that this factor favors respondent.
4. The nonrequesting spouse has a legal obligation pursuant
to a divorce decree or agreement to pay the outstanding liability
(weighs against relief only if the requesting spouse has the
obligation). Petitioner contends that the handwritten portion of
the divorce decree establishes that intervenor is obligated to
repay the erroneous refund. We disagree. The handwritten
portion of the divorce decree states that intervenor is liable
for income tax that she owed “as a result of * * * [intervenor]
under reporting her earning for the year 1999.” That clause has
no effect here because nothing in the record suggests petitioner
and intervenor did not fully report intervenor’s 1999 income.
We conclude that this factor is neutral.
Other than marital status, all factors listed in Rev. Proc.
2000-15, supra, weigh against relief or are neutral.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011