- 8 -
transfer property to anyone to avoid paying taxes. Rev. Proc.
2000-15, sec. 4.01, 2000-1 C.B. at 448. The Commissioner admits
that Negoescu meets all these conditions.
The revenue procedure then provides for a safe harbor; if
Negoescu met these conditions, she would ordinarily get relief.
Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.02. To qualify, Negoescu must show
that (a) she is either separated or divorced, (b) she did not
know when she signed the returns that the tax liabilities would
not be paid, and (c) she would suffer economic hardship if she
doesn’t get relief. Id. Negoescu did show that she and Supplee
are divorced; however, we find that she knew that the taxes would
not be paid. Since she was keeping the books of both Red Hawk
Express and her own checking account, she knew that she and
Supplee did not have the money to pay the taxes due. Negoescu’s
knowledge of the delinquent tax payments means she fails to meet
the safe harbor.
This leaves a balancing test--eight factors to consider
before deciding if relief would be “equitable.” Rev. Proc. 2000-
15, sec. 4.03. These factors are not the only ones which the
Commissioner and we can look at, but they are where we start.
Id.; Ewing v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 32, 47-48 (2004).
We can summarize those factors in a table:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011