Francenia M. Griffin - Page 13

                                       - 12 -                                         
               (v) Significant benefit.  Whether the requesting spouse                
               received significant benefit (beyond normal support) from              
               the unpaid income tax liability or item giving rise to the             
               deficiency.  See Treas. Reg. �1.6015-2(d).                             
               (vi) Compliance with income tax laws. Whether the requesting           
               spouse has made a good faith effort to comply with income              
               tax laws in the taxable years following the taxable year or            
               years to which the request for relief relates.                         
          (b) Factors that, if present in a case, will weigh in favor of              
          equitable relief, but will not weigh against equitable relief if            
          not present in a case include, but are not limited to, the                  
               (i) Abuse.  Whether the nonrequesting spouse abused the                
               requesting spouse.  The presence of abuse is a factor                  
               favoring relief.  A history of abuse by the nonrequesting              
               spouse may mitigate a requesting spouse’s knowledge or                 
               reason to know.                                                        
               (ii) Mental or physical health.  Whether the requesting                
               spouse was in poor mental or physical health on the date the           
               requesting spouse signed the return or at the time the                 
               requesting spouse requested relief.  The Service will                  
               consider the nature, extent, and duration of illness when              
               weighing this factor.                                                  
               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.  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            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011