- 41 -
pears to have been compliant at the time the Notice of Determina-
tion was issued.” We reject as unfounded the Appeals Office’s
failure to conclude in the notice of determination that the tax
law compliance factor favored granting petitioner relief under
section 6015(f).
After the Appeals Office issued the notice of determination,
petitioner failed to file timely her 2004 return that showed a $2
refund due. We find that petitioner’s failure to file timely her
2004 return weighs against granting petitioner relief under
section 6015(f). However, given (1) that petitioner’s noncompli-
ance is limited to only one delinquently filed return for 2004
that showed a refund due and (2) the other facts and circum-
stances in the instant case, we further find that the tax law
compliance factor is not a significant factor weighing against
relief in this case.
We turn now to the factors set forth in section 4.03(2)(b)
of Revenue Procedure 2003-61. The parties agree, and we find,
that the abuse factor and the mental or physical health factor
set forth in section 4.03(2)(b)(i) and (ii), respectively, of
Revenue Procedure 2003-61 are neutral.
Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,
we find that petitioner has carried her burden of showing that
respondent abused respondent’s discretion when the Appeals Office
determined in the notice of determination to deny her relief
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007