Davis and Lois Etkin - Page 13

                                       - 13 -                                         
         statement from which the Appeals officer could determine                     
         petitioners’ income and allowable expenses, and (2) they failed              
         to provide substantiation for their expenses as required by the              
         IRM.                                                                         
              As to Lois Etkin’s claim for equitable relief under section             
         6015(f), respondent considered the following factors dispositive             
         of the issue:  (1) Lois Etkin signed a joint income tax return               
         with her husband for the taxable year 2000, while the hearing was            
         taking place for the taxable years 1997-99; and (2) she was well             
         educated.  On the basis of these two factors, respondent                     
         determined that Lois Etkin had reason to know when she signed the            
         2000 income tax return that the tax liability would not be paid.             
         As a result of this determination and Lois Etkin’s failure to                
         meet some of the requirements set forth in Rev. Proc. 2000-15,               
         sec. 4.02, 2000-1 C.B. 447, 448, respondent denied Lois Etkin’s              
         claim for relief under section 6015(f).                                      
                                       OPINION                                        
              Sections 6320 and 6330 provide for Tax Court review of the              
         Commissioner’s administrative determinations to proceed with                 
         liens and levies.  Where the validity of the underlying tax                  
         liability is at issue, the Court will review the matter de novo.             
         Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 39 (2000).  However,                     
         petitioners have not challenged the validity of the underlying               
         tax liability.  Because the underlying tax liability and section             






Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011