- 7 -
Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447.4 Despite petitioner’s contention
that she did not consent to filing the joint return, the Appeals
officer concluded that petitioner met the seven threshold
requirements of Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.01, 2000-1 C.B. at
448. The Appeals officer then examined whether petitioner
satisfies all three prerequisites for section 6015(f) relief
provided in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.02, and concluded that she
failed to meet the elements because: (1) Petitioner was still
married to Dr. Merendino and lived with him for some of the
preceding 12 months; (2) petitioner did not adequately
demonstrate that she had no knowledge or reason to know that the
tax liability would not be paid; and (3) petitioner did not
adequately demonstrate that she would suffer economic hardship if
relief were not granted. The Appeals Office then considered
petitioner’s claim for relief under Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec.
4.03, 2000-1 C.B. 447, 448. The Appeals officer determined that
relief should not be granted based on the following factors: (1)
The Merendinos, though they maintained different residences, were
still married and lived together for part of the 12 months prior
4On Aug. 11, 2003, the Commissioner issued Rev. Proc.
2003-61, 2003-2 C.B. 296, which supersedes Rev. Proc. 2000-15,
2000-1 C.B. 447, effective for requests for relief which were
filed on or after Nov. 1, 2003, and requests for such relief
which were pending on, and for which no preliminary determination
letter has been issued as of, Nov. 1, 2003. Rev. Proc. 2003-61,
supra, does not apply in this case because respondent issued
petitioner a preliminary determination letter on Feb. 5, 2002.
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