- 7 -
The knowledge or reason to know factor, the economic
hardship factor, and the legal obligation to pay factor in Rev.
Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03(2)(b), (d), and (f), respectively, are
the opposites of the knowledge or reason to know factor, the
economic hardship factor, and the legal obligation to pay factor
in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03(1)(d), (b), and (e),
respectively. The attribution factor in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec.
4.03(2)(a) is substantially the opposite of the attribution
factor in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03(1)(f). Consequently, in
the Court’s review of the Commissioner’s determination denying
relief under section 6015(f), the Court has held that a finding
with respect to the reason to know, economic hardship, legal
obligation, and attribution factors ordinarily will weigh either
in favor of or against granting equitable relief under section
6015(f). Ewing v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. at 45. The Court has
also held that a finding that a requesting spouse did not receive
a significant benefit from the item giving rise to the deficiency
weighs in favor of granting relief under section 6015(f). Id.
Finally, the Court treats evidence that the remaining positive
and negative factors are not applicable as evidence weighing
neither in favor of nor against granting equitable relief (i.e.,
as neutral). Id.
In favor of petitioner here are the factors of marital
status, attribution, and failure to significantly benefit beyond
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011