- 26 -
that respondent abused his discretion by acting arbitrarily,
capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law. See Jonson
v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 125 (2002), affd. 353 F.3d 1181
(10th Cir. 2003); Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 289-290,
(2000). Lois Etkin bears the burden of proving that respondent
abused his discretion in denying her equitable relief under
section 6015(f). See Rule 142(a); Alt v. Commissioner, 119 T.C.
306, 311 (2002), affd. 101 Fed. Appx. 34 (6th Cir. 2004); Ogonoski
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-52.
Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.01, 2000-1 C.B. 447, 448,
prescribes guidelines that will be considered in determining
whether an individual qualifies for equitable relief under section
6015(f).6 This Court has upheld the use of the guidelines
specified in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, supra, and has analyzed the
factors listed therein, in reviewing the Commissioner’s negative
determinations under section 6015(f). See, e.g., Washington v.
Commissioner, supra at 147-152. Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.01,
lists seven threshold conditions that must be satisfied before the
6On Aug. 11, 2003, the Commissioner issued Rev. Proc.
2003-61, 2003-2 C.B. 296, which supersedes Rev. Proc. 2000-15,
2000-1 C.B. 447, effective for requests for relief pending on or
after Nov. 1, 2003, for which no preliminary determination letter
has been issued as of Nov. 1, 2003. Rev. Proc. 2003-61, supra,
does not apply in this case because petitioners’ request for
relief was denied before the effective date.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011