- 40 -
unfounded the Appeals Office’s failure to conclude in the notice
of determination that the significant benefit factor favored
granting petitioner such relief. Under cases where Revenue
Procedure 2003-61 is applicable, we consider the lack of signifi-
cant benefit by the taxpayer seeking relief from joint and sev-
eral liability to be a factor that favors granting relief under
section 6015(f).11 We find that the significant benefit factor
weighs in favor of granting petitioner relief under section
6015(f).
With respect to the tax law compliance factor set forth in
section 4.03(2)(a)(vi) of Revenue Procedure 2003-61, petitioner
argues that that factor weighs in favor of granting her relief
under section 6015(f). On brief, respondent asserts:
If the Court restricts itself to the administrative
record then this factor favors petitioner. If the
Court considers information outside of the administra-
tive record then this factor weighs against relief.
[Reproduced literally.]
The notice of determination failed to address whether peti-
tioner made a good faith effort to comply with the tax laws for
any of the taxable years following the taxable years at issue.
However, respondent acknowledges on brief that petitioner “ap-
11See Magee v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-263. We also
note that, based on cases decided under former sec. 6013(e), we
consider the lack of significant benefit by the taxpayer seeking
relief from joint and several liability to be a factor that
favors granting relief under sec. 6015(f). Ferrarese v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-249.
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007