- 5 -
The parties agree that petitioner is eligible to be
considered for equitable relief under section 6015(f) because
relief is not available to the petitioner under section 6015(b)
or (c). They disagree whether, under the facts and circumstances
presented to respondent, it was inequitable for respondent to
deny petitioner relief from joint and several liability.
We have jurisdiction to review respondent's denial of
petitioner's request for equitable relief under section 6015(f).
Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 125 (2002), affd. 353 F.3d
1181 (10th Cir. 2003); Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 292
(2000). We review such denial of relief to decide whether
respondent abused his discretion by acting arbitrarily,
capriciously, or without sound basis in fact. Jonson v.
Commissioner, supra at 125; Butler v. Commissioner, supra at 292.
Whether respondent abused his discretion in denying petitioner
relief presents a question of fact. See Cheshire v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 183, 198 (2000), affd. 282 F.3d 326 (5th
Cir. 2002). Petitioner bears the burden of proving that
respondent abused his discretion. See Washington v.
Commissioner, 120 T.C. 137, 146 (2003); see also Alt v.
Commissioner, 119 T.C. 306, 311 (2002) ("Except as otherwise
provided in section 6015, petitioner bears the burden of proof"),
affd. 101 Fed. Appx. 34 (6th Cir. 2004); Jonson v. Commissioner,
supra at 125.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011