- 9 -
under section 6015(f). According to the testimony of petitioner,
she was not aware of her right to request relief until after the
death of Mr. Clark on October 25, 2001.
Not sending the notice of rights resulted in petitioner’s
failure to request relief under section 6015(f) within 2 years
after the first collection activity because she did not know of
these rights. Therefore, on this record, there was an abuse of
discretion by respondent in denying petitioner’s request for
relief under section 6015(f) on the ground that the 2-year
limitation period applies.
Respondent acknowledged at trial that there was no analysis
or evaluation of the facts and circumstances of petitioner’s case
in denying her request for relief under section 6015(f). The
courts have held that, in reviewing administrative actions, a
case should be remanded for further factual determinations deemed
necessary to complete an inadequate administrative record or to
make one adequate. See Natl. Nutritional Foods Association v.
Weinberger, 512 F.2d 688, 701 (2d Cir. 1975); see also Camp v.
Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 143 (1973); Asarco, Inc. v. EPA, 616 F.2d
1153, 1160 (9th Cir. 1980); Friday v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. ____
(2005). Therefore, because the Court holds that petitioner filed
her application for relief timely, and, because the
administrative record is not adequate, the case will be remanded
to respondent for further consideration.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011