- 11 -
the principal. See Hartman v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,
9 F.3d 1207, 1212 (7th Cir. 1993); All States Trailer Co. v.
American Ins. Co., 234 F.2d 783, 786 (7th Cir. 1956).
Petitioner’s divorce counsel were certainly aware of the
distribution, and their knowledge is imputed to petitioner.
Consequently, petitioner is not entitled to relief under section
6015(b) or (c), and we turn our attention to petitioner’s claim
for relief under section 6015(f).
If a taxpayer is not entitled to relief under section
6015(b) or (c), then the taxpayer, under procedures prescribed by
respondent, is entitled to equitable relief if “taking into
account all the facts and circumstances, it is inequitable to
hold the individual liable for any * * * deficiency”. Sec.
6015(f)(1); Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 137, 146-147
(2003).
We review the Commissioner’s determination to deny section
6015(f) equitable relief using an abuse of discretion standard
and defer to the Commissioner’s determination unless it is
arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact. Jonson v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 125 (2002), affd. 353 F.3d 1181 (10th
Cir. 2003).
As required by section 6015(f), the Commissioner has
prescribed procedures and factors to be used by the Internal
Revenue Service to determine whether a spouse qualifies for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011