- 11 -
However, the report by the Appeals officer accompanying the
notice of determination denied petitioner relief under section
6015(b) because (1) petitioner had actual or constructive
knowledge of all or part of the understatement, and (2) the
Appeals officer determined that it was not inequitable to hold
petitioner liable for the deficiency. The notice of
determination stated that petitioner was not entitled to relief
from joint and several liability for the taxable year 1983 under
section 6015(f). In making this determination, the Appeals
officer evaluated petitioner’s request under Rev. Proc. 2003-61,
2003-2 C.B. 296.2
On April 22, 2004, petitioner timely filed a petition with
this Court under section 6015(e) seeking review of respondent's
determination.
2Rev. Proc. 2003-61, 2003-2 C.B. 296, is effective only for
requests for relief filed on or after Nov. 1, 2003, or requests
for relief pending on Nov. 1, 2003, for which no preliminary
determination letter had been issued as of Nov. 1, 2003. The
request for relief in this case was filed on Apr. 14, 1999, and a
preliminary determination letter denying petitioner relief was
issued on Aug. 9, 2000. Therefore, Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1
C.B. 447, should have been used to consider this case. There is
no basis to conclude, however, that the Appeals officer would
have reached a different conclusion under Rev. Proc. 2000-15,
supra.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011