- 16 -
is arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law.
Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999). The question of
whether respondent’s determination was arbitrary, capricious, or
without sound basis in fact is a question of fact. Cheshire v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 183, 198 (2000), affd. 282 F.3d 326 (5th
Cir. 2002). In deciding whether respondent’s determination that
petitioner is not entitled to relief under section 6015(f) was an
abuse of discretion, we consider evidence relating to all the
facts and circumstances.
Respondent contends that his denial of petitioner’s request
for equitable relief from joint liability under section 6015(f)
was not an abuse of discretion. We now address each of the
factors of Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03, separately.
1. Marital Status
During 1995, 1997, and 1998, petitioner and Mr. Tillotson
were married and resided in the same household. Petitioner and
Mr. Tillotson were divorced on November 27, 2000. This factor
weighs in favor of granting relief to petitioner.
2. Economic Hardship
Respondent contends that petitioner offered no evidence that
she would suffer economic hardship if relief were denied.
Pursuant to section 301.6343-1(b)(4)(ii), Proced. & Admin. Regs.,
economic hardship exists if a levy will cause a taxpayer to be
unable to pay his/her reasonable basic living expenses.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011