- 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
following:
(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