- 8 -
Sec. 6015(f). The Commissioner has issued revenue procedures to
guide the exercise of his discretion, and Revenue Procedure 2000-
15 was the one in effect when Motsko asked for relief. Rev.
Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447. We routinely refer to that
revenue procedure when we review what the Commissioner did, see,
e.g., Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 137, 147-152 (2003);
Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 125-126 (2002), affd. 353
F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2003), though we have also considered other
factors, Ewing v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 32, 48-49 (2004), appeal
docketed, No. 04-73237 (9th Cir.).
We begin by noting that Motsko has the burden of proof. Alt
v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 306, 311 (2002), affd. 101 Fed. Appx.
34 (6th Cir. 2004). This means that he must show that the
Commissioner’s denial of relief was arbitrary, capricious, or
without sound basis in fact. Jonson, 118 T.C. at 125; Butler,
114 T.C. at 292. We have, however, ruled that the Commissioner’s
determination to deny relief under section 6015(f) is subject to
de novo review. Ewing v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. at 38-39. The
Commissioner’s continuing disagreement with Ewing made him argue
in this case that we should limit Motsko to the evidence that was
before the Appeals officer who denied his relief. Ewing binds
us, though, so we considered evidence that Motsko presented for
the first time at trial.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011