- 6 -
Commissioner, 78 T.C. 100, 129 (1982) (citing Bruner v.
Commissioner, 39 T.C. 534, 537 (1962); Neeman v. Commissioner, 13
T.C. 397, 399 (1949), affd. per curiam 200 F.2d 560 (2d Cir.
1952); Casey v. Commissioner, 12 T.C. 224, 227 (1949); Bonner v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1979-435; Ballenger v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1955-171).
Relief from joint and several liability is available to
certain taxpayers under section 6015. There are three avenues
for relief available under this section–-section 6015(b), (c),
(f). In reaching the decision at the administrative level in
this case, the Appeals officer denied relief under subsections
(b) and (c) finding that petitioner had actual knowledge. The
Appeals officer also denied relief under subsection (f) noting:
While no formal request under 6015(f) was
received during the CDP process, the taxpayer’s
statements all concerned the inequity of holding her
liable and her inability to pay. The taxpayer
provided no financial information so Appeals could
make no determination as to the hardship provisions
of 6015(f) * * *. Appeals considered the taxpayer’s
statements about the inequity of holding her liable,
but her bare statements alone were insufficient to
overcome the prior denial of relief. Both the
taxpayer and her POA were given time to supply
additional supporting documentation and chose not to
do so.
The Appeals officer sustained the levy action. This Court will
reverse the Appeals officer’s finding only if petitioner
establishes there was an abuse of discretion.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011