- 8 -
We review respondent’s denial of equitable relief after a
trial de novo and under an abuse of discretion standard. Ewing
v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. at 35-44; Butler v. Commissioner,
supra. Petitioner bears the burden of proving that respondent’s
denial of her request for section 6015(f) relief is an abuse of
discretion. See Rule 142(a); Washington v. Commissioner, supra
at 146; Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 125 (2002), affd.
353 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2003). Petitioner must demonstrate that
respondent exercised his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or
without sound basis in fact or law. See Jonson v. Commissioner,
supra; Cheshire v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 183, 198 (2000), affd.
282 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2002). The Court’s review is not limited
to respondent’s administrative record. Ewing v. Commissioner,
supra at 44.
As required by section 6015(f), the Commissioner has
prescribed procedures and factors IRS employees use to determine
whether a spouse qualifies for relief under that section. At the
time that petitioner requested relief under section 6015(f),
those procedures were set forth in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1
C.B. 447. (Subsequent modification of these procedures by Rev.
Proc. 2003-61, 2003-2 C.B. 296, does not affect the resolution of
this case.)
Certain threshold conditions must be satisfied before the
Commissioner will consider a request for relief under section
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011