- 7 -
expect that intervenor, having retained counsel for divorce,
would balk at paying the entire tax liability. Judging from
petitioner’s actions, he had evidently decided that he would not
be the one to pay the tax liability. The Court finds from the
record that petitioner has not shown that at the time he signed
the return he had no reason to know that the tax would not be
paid.
In determining whether a requesting spouse will suffer
economic hardship if relief is not granted, Rev. Proc. 2000-15,
supra, looks to section 301.6343-1(b)(4), Proced. & Admin. Regs.,
for guidance. Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.02(1)(c). Economic
hardship is present if satisfaction of the tax liability in whole
or in part will cause the taxpayer to be unable to pay
reasonable basic living expenses. Sec. 301.6343-1(b)(4), Proced.
& Admin. Regs. Petitioner offered no evidence that payment of
part or all of the tax due would cause him financial hardship.
Where, as here, the requesting spouse fails to qualify for
relief under Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.02, the Commissioner may
nonetheless grant the requesting spouse relief under Rev. Proc.
2000-15, sec. 4.03, 2000-1 C.B. at 448. Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec.
4.03(1) and (2), 2000-1 C.B. at 448-449, sets forth six positive
and six negative factors that are to be considered in determining
whether to grant relief. The revenue procedure makes clear that
no single factor is to be determinative in any particular case,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011