- 10 -
without reviewing it. When questioned by counsel for respondent
whether she had an opportunity to review the return, petitioner
responded she could have but thought there was no reason to.
Petitioner offered no evidence, other than her testimony, to
substantiate her claim of lack of knowledge. Her testimony alone
is not enough to show that the Appeals officer abused her
discretion in finding petitioner had actual knowledge of the
pension distribution. Therefore, respondent’s denial of relief
under section 6015(b) and (c) due to petitioner’s actual
knowledge of the pension distribution is sustained.
Lastly, the Court reviews the Appeals officer’s denial of
relief under section 6015(f). Section 6015(f) more broadly
confers on the Secretary discretion to grant equitable relief for
taxpayers who otherwise do not qualify for relief under section
6015(b) or (c). As directed by section 6015(f), the Commissioner
has prescribed guidelines in Rev. Proc. 2003-61, 2003-2 C.B. 296,
that the Commissioner will consider in determining whether an
individual qualifies for relief under section 6015(f).5 The
taxpayer may present evidence of factors like abuse, economic
hardship, or lack of knowledge to show it would be inequitable
5Rev. Proc. 2003-61, 2003-2 C.B. 296, not Rev. Proc. 2000-
15, 2001 C.B. 447, applies to this case because Rev. Proc. 2003-
61 supersedes Rev. Proc. 2000-15 for requests still pending on
Nov. 1, 2003, for which no preliminary determination letter had
been issued as of Nov. 1, 2003. The Appeals officer issued
petitioner’s notice of determination on Dec. 16, 2003.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011