- 19 -
of any item giving rise to the deficiency without further factual
development.
We reject respondent’s justification for his administrative
and litigation position for several reasons. First, although
respondent argues that petitioner did not present all relevant
information under her control on or before the date the notice of
determination was issued, the record for purposes of this motion
establishes otherwise. In a protest letter dated September 26,
2001, appealing the Service’s denial of any relief under section
6015, petitioner stated that she had no actual knowledge of the
items giving rise to the liabilities in question12 and provided
respondent a detailed statement of the facts supporting her
argument that she was entitled to relief under section 6015(c),
which included a citation to our opinion in King v. Commissioner,
supra at 204. Petitioner also offered to provide any additional
information that the Service might require. In a subsequent
letter dated July 22, 2002, to Appeals Officer Brush, petitioner
provided an even more detailed explanation of why she believed
she qualified for relief under section 6015(c). She reiterated
her position that she had no actual knowledge at the time she
signed the relevant returns of the items giving rise to the
12A party’s statement, if credible, is evidence on which the
finder of fact may rely to establish a relevant fact. In this
case, there is nothing in the record to suggest that petitioner’s
statement regarding her lack of actual knowledge was not
credible.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011