- 10 -
section 6015(f) and are outlined in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1
C.B. 447.4 Alt v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. at 316. The factors
weighing in favor of relief are as follows: (a) Petitioner was
divorced from Ms. Moore, (b) as more fully discussed with respect
to section 6015(b)(1)(C) above, petitioner did not know or have
reason to know of the understatement, (c) there is nothing in the
record indicating that Ms. Moore had a legal obligation to pay
the outstanding tax liability, and (d) the items giving rise to
the deficiency–-that is, the Schedule C deductions--are
attributable solely to Ms. Moore. These factors weighing in
favor of relief have either been satisfied by petitioner or have
a neutral effect. See Rosenthal v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2004-89. Accordingly, we conclude that it is inequitable under
section 6015(b)(1)(D) to hold petitioner liable for the
deficiency, to the extent that it relates to the Schedule C
deductions and the resulting adjustment of $2,444 to the self-
employment tax.
4 The Commissioner prescribed procedures in Rev. Proc.
2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447, to be used in determining whether an
individual qualifies for relief under sec. 6015(f). The revenue
procedure takes into account factors such as marital status,
economic hardship, and significant benefit in determining whether
relief will be granted under sec. 6015(f). Rev. Proc. 2000-15,
sec. 4.03, 2000-1 C.B. at 448. We note, however, that this
revenue procedure has been superseded by Rev. Proc. 2003-61,
2003-32 I.R.B. 296, which is effective for requests for relief
made after Nov. 1, 2003.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011