Garnett E. Thorpe - Page 14

                                       - 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