- 17 -
Respondent found that Tomi was not entitled to relief under
either section 6015(b) or (c) because she had actual knowledge of
the gambling activity. Furthermore, Tomi agrees that she was not
eligible for relief under either section 6015(b) or (c), and that
she was entitled to partial relief under section 6015(f) as
respondent determined.
Typically, a spouse seeking equitable relief from joint and
several liability under section 6015(f) must prove that the
Commissioner’s determination regarding relief was an abuse of
discretion.9 Rule 142(a); Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C.
137, 146 (2003); Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 125
(2002), affd. 353 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2003); Cheshire v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 183, 198 (2000), affd. 282 F.3d 326 (5th
Cir. 2002); Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 291-292. The
Commissioner’s exercise of discretion is entitled to due
deference; in order to prevail, the taxpayer must demonstrate
that the Commissioner exercised his discretion arbitrarily,
capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law. Jonson v.
Commissioner, supra at 125. Here, the nonrequesting spouse,
Stanley, must demonstrate that respondent exercised his
discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in
9The taxpayer bears the burden of proof except as otherwise
provided in sec. 6015. Rule 142(a); Alt v. Commissioner, 119
T.C. 306, 311 (2002), affd. 101 Fed. Appx. 34 (6th Cir. 2004).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011