- 13 -
allocation rules of section 6015(d), the Appeals officer could
have considered, without the necessity for a separate section
6015(f) election, whether equitable relief under section 6015(f)
was appropriate for the portion of the liability for which
section 6015(c) relief was not available. Rev. Proc. 2000-15,
sec. 5, 2000-1 C.B. 447, 449; see supra note 1. The
nonrequesting spouse’s legal liability is a factor that usually
weighs in favor of the requesting spouse’s claim for equitable
relief. Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 3.03(e), 2000-1 C.B. at 449.
The Appeals officer’s refusal to discuss or consider the issue of
petitioner’s request for relief under section 6015(c) raised in
the Form 12153 or to consider relief under section 6015(f) was
arbitrary, capricious and without sound basis in law.
Under the circumstances of this case, we hold that the
Appeals officer abused his discretion in declining to consider
petitioner’s section 6015(c) claim at his CDP hearing.
C. Collection Alternatives
Petitioner proposed collection alternatives at his CDP
hearing by urging that he qualified for currently not collectible
status on account of hardship and suggesting, alternatively, an
installment agreement. The Appeals officer determined that
petitioner was not eligible for a collection alternative because
petitioner had failed to file an income tax return for 2000. We
have consistently upheld an Appeals officer’s determination not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011