- 22 -
v. Commissioner, 20 F.3d 1128, 1136-1137 (11th Cir. 1994), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1993-17. In addition, respondent has not shown that
petitioner had actual knowledge of the item giving rise to the
deficiency. See sec. 6015(c)(3)(C).
Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is entitled to relief
under section 6015(c) from joint liability for the 1979
deficiency. In light of this holding, we need not consider
whether petitioner is eligible to receive relief under section
6015(f) for 1979.11
C. Relief Under Section 6015(f) for 1991 Through 1999
Respondent denied petitioner’s request for equitable relief
under section 6015(f) from joint liability for 1991, 1992, 1993,
1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.
We have jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s denial of
a requesting spouse’s request for equitable relief under section
6015(f). Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. at 145; Ewing v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. 494, 497-507 (2002). To prevail,
petitioner must establish that respondent’s denial of equitable
relief under section 6015(f) was an abuse of discretion.
Washington v. Commissioner, supra at 146; Cheshire v.
11 Refunds are limited to situations where relief is granted
under sec. 6015(b) or (f). See sec. 6015(g). However, there is
no indication in the record that petitioner would be entitled to
a refund or credit if granted relief under sec. 6015. Because
relief under sec. 6015(f) would not provide petitioner any more
relief than she would obtain under sec. 6015(c), we need not give
this matter further consideration. See sec. 6015(f)(2).
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011