- 9 -
448, and relief was denied on the basis that none of the relevant
factors to be considered under Rev. Proc. 2000-15 weighed in
favor of petitioner. Respondent agrees that Rev. Proc. 2003-61
includes another factor that is not a factor to be considered
under Rev. Proc. 2000-15. That additional factor in Rev. Proc.
2003-61 is an additional threshold condition that must be met by
the taxpayer before an application for equitable relief can be
considered: “(7) The income tax liability from which the
requesting spouse seeks relief is attributable to an item of the
individual with whom the requesting spouse filed the joint return
(the ‘nonrequesting spouse’)” unless one of certain other
exceptions applies--none of which exists in this case.
Respondent points out that the expense items on the return that
were disallowed were personal expenses of both petitioner and her
spouse and came within the contemplation of this provision of
Rev. Proc. 2003-61. Therefore, respondent argues that this
requirement of Rev. Proc. 2003-61 works against petitioner’s
entitlement to relief because the expense items in question were
for her personal expenses (meals she ate, trips she took, and
gasoline purchased for personal use) and, therefore, constituted
a forfeiture of petitioner’s right to be considered for equitable
relief under section 6015(f). The Court agrees with that
argument. Petitioner is not entitled to relief under section
6015(f).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011