Joyce A. Siddons, Petitioner, and Richard J. Siddons, Intervenor - Page 7

                                        - 6 -                                         
          section 6015(f).  We review respondent’s denial of relief under             
          section 6015(f) to determine whether respondent abused his                  
          discretion.  Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 125 (2002),              
          affd. 353 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2003).                                       
               Pursuant to section 6015(f), the Commissioner has prescribed           
          guidelines in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.01, 2000-1 C.B. 447,               
          448, for determining whether an individual qualifies for                    
          equitable relief from joint and several liability.6  Rev. Proc.             
          2000-15, sec. 4.01, 2000-1 C.B. at 448, sets forth seven                    
          threshold conditions that must be satisfied before the Secretary            
          will consider any request for equitable relief pursuant to                  
          section 6015(f).  In this case, respondent agrees that petitioner           
          has satisfied the seven threshold conditions.                               
               Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.02, 2000-1 C.B. at 448, provides            
          that equitable relief will ordinarily be granted if the seven               
          threshold conditions and each of the following three elements are           
          satisfied (three element test):                                             
                    (a) At the time relief is requested, the requesting               
               spouse is no longer married to, or is legally separated                
               from, the nonrequesting spouse, or has not been a member of            
               the same household as the nonrequesting spouse at any time             

               6Rev. Proc. 2003-61 does not apply to this case because,               
          although it supersedes Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447, for             
          requests still pending on Nov. 1, 2003, for which no preliminary            
          determination letter had been issued as of Nov. 1, 2003,                    
          respondent issued the preliminary determination letter to                   
          petitioner on July 31, 2003. Rev. Proc. 2000-15, supra,                     
          therefore, applies here.                                                    

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011