- 12 -
or deficiency, and full or partial equitable relief under section
6015(f) should be granted. Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 4.03, 2003-2
C.B. at 298, provides that the following factors are relevant to
whether the Commissioner will grant equitable relief: (1)
Marital status, (2) economic hardship, (3) knowledge or reason to
know, (4) the nonrequesting spouse’s legal obligation, (5)
significant benefit, (6) compliance with income tax laws, (7)
abuse, and (8) mental or physical health. Further, Rev. Proc.
2003-61, supra, provides that no single factor will be
determinative, but that all relevant factors, regardless of
whether the factor is listed in Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 4.03,
will be considered and weighed.
To prevail under section 6015(f), petitioner must show that
respondent’s denial of equitable relief from joint liability
under section 6015(f) was an abuse of discretion. See Washington
v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 137 (2003); Jonson v. Commissioner, 118
T.C. 106, 125 (2002) (citing Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C.
276, 292 (2000)), affd. 353 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2003). Action
constitutes an abuse of discretion under this standard where it
is arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law.
Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999). The question of
whether respondent’s determination was arbitrary, capricious, or
without sound basis in fact is a question of fact. Cheshire v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 183, 198 (2000), affd. 282 F.3d 326 (5th
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011