- 13 -
is an “extremely strong factor weighing against relief.”
The revenue procedure does go on to say: “[n]onetheless,
when the factors in favor of equitable relief are unusually
strong, it may be appropriate to grant relief under section
6015(f) in limited situations where a requesting spouse knew or
had reason to know that the liability would not be paid.” Rev.
Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03(2)(b), 2000-1 C.B. 447. The two factors
weighing toward relief--that Negoescu divorced Supplee and that
he agreed to be responsible for the tax liabilities--are not
strong enough. Negoescu's reliance on these two factors boils
down to saying that her ex-husband broke his promise to pay the
taxes they both owed. While that is true, the Commissioner was
not a party to that agreement, and so it’s usually fair for him
to try to collect unpaid taxes from both spouses who signed a
return. Pesch v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 100, 128-129 (1982). We
think this is especially true where the income triggering the
unpaid tax was produced--at least in part--by both spouses, as in
Negoescu’s case.
Our opinion is based on the evidence presented at trial,
evidence that the Commissioner did not have when he made his
determination. In a recent case, Robinette v. Commissioner, 123
T.C. 85, 112, 115, 119 (2004) (Wells, Thornton, and Wherry, JJ.,
concurring), many of the Tax Court’s judges warned that if the
Commissioner did not have evidence because a taxpayer withheld
evidence during the appeals process, we should limit our review
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011