Stanley K. and Tomi L. Baumann - Page 18

                                       - 18 -                                         
          fact or law.  See id.; Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23             
          (1999).                                                                     
               The Commissioner has prescribed procedures as directed by              
          section 6015(f) for determining whether a spouse qualifies for              
          relief under subsection (f).  These procedures are set forth in             
          Rev. Proc. 2003-61, 2003-2 C.B. 296.  Rev. Proc. 2003-61, supra,            
          which applies here, has a nonexhaustive list of factors weighing            
          in favor of relief and factors weighing against relief.  Stanley            
          has failed to present any evidence that would suggest with regard           
          to these factors that Tomi did not qualify for equitable relief             
          as respondent determined.  Accordingly, we conclude that                    
          respondent did not abuse his discretion by acting arbitrarily,              
          capriciously, or without sound basis in fact in granting Tomi               
          equitable relief under section 6015(f).                                     
               We have considered all arguments the parties made in                   
          reaching our holdings, and, to the extent not mentioned, we find            
          them to be irrelevant or without merit.                                     
               To reflect the foregoing,                                              

                                             An appropriate decision will             
                                        be entered.                                   












Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  

Last modified: May 25, 2011