- 8 -
has described some of the factors that he will look at and weigh,
his list is not exhaustive. Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03, 2000-
1 C.B. 447, 448; see also Ewing v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 32, 48-
49 (2004).
Relief under subsection (b), in contrast, doesn’t even
require a determination by the Commissioner denying relief before
this Court can grant it. Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276,
288 (2000). A petitioner under this subsection generally has the
burden of proof, but need only persuade us by a preponderance of
the evidence rather than prove that the Commissioner abused his
discretion. See McClelland v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2005-121.
Section 6015(b)(1) is also similar to former section 6013(e)(1),
which means there is a body of precedent to which we look when
analyzing parallel provisions of section 6015. Butler, 114 T.C.
at 283; see Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 119 (2002),
affd. 353 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2003).
A requesting spouse may qualify for relief under section
6015(b) if:
(A) a joint return has been made for a taxable year;
(B) on such return there is an understatement of tax
attributable to erroneous items of one individual
filing the joint return;
(C) the other individual filing the joint return
establishes that in signing the return he or she
did not know, and had no reason to know, that
there was such an understatement;
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