- 20 -
Petitioner knew or had reason to know at the time she signed
the returns that Mr. Ogonoski would not pay the reported
liabilities on time, which is “an extremely strong factor”
against relief. We find no abuse of discretion in respondent’s
determination that petitioner and Mr. Ogonoski are jointly liable
to pay their substantial joint tax liabilities, estimated tax and
nonpayment penalties, and accumulated interest. Because
petitioner knew the taxes were not being paid currently and might
not be paid in the future, she assumed the risk that she would be
called upon to pay the remaining joint liabilities should
respondent attempt to collect them from her. Considering all the
facts and circumstances and applying the relevant conditions and
factors under Rev. Proc. 2000-15, supra, as a whole, we hold
respondent did not abuse his discretion, i.e., he did not act
arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in fact, in
denying petitioner’s request for equitable relief under section
6015(f).5 We sustain respondent’s determination denying relief
under section 6015(f).
Issue 2. Period of Limitation
Petitioner asks us to decide whether the period of
limitation for collection of her 1989 unpaid tax liability has
5This is not a case like Foor v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2004-54, in which the presence of a whole panoply of factors
favoring relief overcame the significance of the taxpayer’s
reason to know the reported tax liabilities would not be paid.
See Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 137, 150-151 (2003).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011