- 7 -
factor will (except in one circumstance) necessarily be
considered positive or negative.2 With regard to the remaining
two factors in each group, the absence of the factor is
considered neutral by the Commissioner.3 Because four factors
are common to both groups of six factors, there are actually
eight (4+2+2) separate and distinct factors set forth in section
4.03 of Rev. Proc. 2000-15. No single factor is determinative,
and the list is not exhaustive. See Washington v. Commissioner,
supra at 148; Jonson v. Commissioner, supra at 125.
Petitioner meets the threshold conditions set forth in
section 4.01 of Rev. Proc. 2000-15 but does not satisfy the
conditions set forth in section 4.02. We must therefore consider
the eight separate and distinct factors set forth in section 4.03
of Rev. Proc. 2000-15. Although respondent’s Appeals officer
based his determination principally on his conclusion that the
settlement agreement did not limit petitioner’s liability to one-
half of the 1999 liability, and he did not specifically address
2 One of the reciprocal factors is that “[t]he
nonrequesting spouse has a legal obligation pursuant to a divorce
decree or agreement to pay the outstanding liability” (positive)
or, conversely, that the requesting spouse bears that obligation
(negative). If neither spouse bears the obligation, the
resulting absence is necessarily neutral.
3 In Ewing v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 32, 45 (2004), we
stated that we consider the absence of significant benefit to be
a factor favoring relief (the Commissioner only considers such
absence to be neutral). Since, as discussed infra, there is no
evidence one way or the other concerning significant benefit, we
may treat that factor as neutral for purposes of this report.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011