- 14 -
Rev. Proc. 2000-15, supra, implies that the Commissioner
will generally not consider the absence of factor (1), (2), (3),
or (4) in determining whether to grant relief under section
6015(f). However, on the basis of caselaw deciding whether it
was equitable to relieve a taxpayer from joint liability under
former section 6013(e)(1)(D), the Court considers the factor that
a taxpayer did not significantly benefit from the unpaid
liability or item giving rise to the deficiency as a factor in
favor of granting relief to that taxpayer.5 Ewing v.
Commissioner, supra at ____ (slip op. at 22-24); Ferrarese v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-249 (citing Belk v. Commissioner,
93 T.C. 434, 440-441 (1989); Foley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1995-16; Robinson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-557; Klimenko
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-340; and Hillman v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-151).
Rev. Proc. 2000-15, supra, lists the following four factors
which, if present, the Commissioner weighs in favor of granting
relief, and if not present, the Commissioner weighs against
granting relief: (5) The taxpayer would suffer economic hardship
if relief is denied; (6) in the case of a liability that was
5Cases deciding whether a taxpayer was entitled to equitable
relief under sec. 6013(e)(1)(D) are helpful in deciding whether a
taxpayer is entitled to relief under sec. 6015(f). Mitchell v.
Commissioner, 292 F.3d 800, 806 (D.C. Cir. 2002), affg. T.C.
Memo. 2000-332; Cheshire v. Commissioner, 282 F.3d 326, 338 n.29
(5th Cir. 2002), affg. 115 T.C. 183 (2000).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011