- 10 -
2000-15, sec. 4.03(2)(a) is substantially the opposite of the
attribution factor in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03(1)(f).
Consequently, in the Court’s review of the Commissioner’s
determination denying relief under section 6015(f), the Court has
held that a finding with respect to the reason to know, economic
hardship, legal obligation, and attribution factors ordinarily
will weigh either in favor of or against granting equitable
relief under section 6015(f). Ewing v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. at
45. The Court has also held that a finding that a requesting
spouse did not receive a significant benefit from the item in
issue weighs in favor of granting relief under section 6015(f).
Id. Finally, the Court treats evidence that the remaining
positive and negative factors are not applicable as evidence
weighing neither in favor of nor against granting equitable
relief (i.e., as neutral). Id.
The sole factor in favor of petitioner here is the factor of
marital status. Petitioner and her former husband were divorced
in 2002. The remaining factors that are applicable tend to weigh
against petitioner. Petitioner caused the mathematical error on
the return, and she had knowledge of the actual amounts she paid
for child care. Petitioner also derived a significant benefit
from her miscalculation in that the return reflected an
overpayment of $693 instead of an understatement of $6,450.
Finally, petitioner has failed to show that she would experience
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011