- 27 -
knowledge or reason to know of that unpaid liability. In con-
cluding that the taxpayer had knowledge or reason to know of the
unpaid liability in question, the IRS equated the taxpayer’s
knowledge or reason to know that an amount of tax was shown due
in the return in question with knowledge or reason to know that
such amount shown due would not be paid. In contrast, in the
instant case, the Appeals Office based its determination that
petitioner is not entitled to relief under section 6015(f) on its
conclusions that the unpaid 1998 liability was not attributable
solely to Mr. Simon, that “It is clearly not believable that the
taxpayer [petitioner] did not know of this liability due”, and
that petitioner “provided no evidence that she believed the tax
would be paid at the time the tax return was filed”10 as well as
on the absence of any (1) economic hardship, (2) spousal abuse,
10The Appeals Office stated in the Appeals Office memoran-
dum:
this year [1998] was the second year of withdrawals
from the NRS’s [nonrequesting spouse’s, i.e., Mr.
Simon’s] IRA accounts. The likelihood that she [peti-
tioner] did not know of the withdrawals from beginning
in 1997, that were included on the 1997 tax return, is
diminished in the second year. In addition, the with-
drawals were included in the income of the 1998 tax
return and the return clearly reflected a balance due
In Excess of $12,000. It is clearly not believable
that the taxpayer did not know of this liability due.
She [petitioner] further provided no evidence that she
believed the tax would be paid at the time the tax
return was filed. [Reproduced literally.]
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011