Annette L. Morello - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         
          liability would not be paid at the time that the return was                 
          signed; (3) the liability for which relief is sought is                     
          attributable to the nonrequesting spouse; and (4) the                       
          nonrequesting spouse has a legal obligation pursuant to a divorce           
          decree or agreement to pay the outstanding liability (this factor           
          weighs against relief only if the requesting spouse has the                 
          obligation).  Respondent concedes that the economic hardship                
          factor weighs in petitioner’s favor.  The knowledge or reason to            
          know factor weighs against petitioner for the reasons discussed             
          above.  The attribution factor weighs against petitioner because            
          a portion of the income tax liabilities for 1992 through 1995 is            
          attributable to her (i.e., she allowed a lesser amount of Federal           
          income tax to be withheld from her wages than that which became             
          due on her portion of Mazzilli’s and her joint income for those             
          years).  Respondent concedes that the legal obligation factor               
          weighs in petitioner’s favor.                                               
               Based on our examination of the facts and circumstances in             
          this case, some of the factors in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03,            
          2000-1 C.B. at 448, are neutral.  With respect to the factors               
          that are not neutral, those weighing against granting petitioner            
          relief outweigh those weighing in favor of granting her relief.             
          Petitioner’s situation is unfortunate, but we cannot conclude               
          that respondent abused respondent’s discretion by acting                    
          arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in fact in                






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011