- 9 -
Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.02(1)(a), 2000-1 C.B. at 448, and
David and Rosalee have remained married throughout her ordeal.
This leaves an eight-factor balancing test to decide whether
relief would be "equitable." Id., sec. 4.03. Those factors, and
the circumstances under which they are to weigh for or against
relief or be treated as neutral, are easily summarized in a
chart. Here we list those factors about which the parties agree
in italics.
Weighs for Relief Neutral Weighs against
Relief
No knowledge of Knowledge
the underpayment
or item giving
rise to the
deficiency
Economic hardship No economic hardship
No significant Significant benefit
benefit3
Later compliance with No later compliance
Federal tax laws with Federal tax
laws
Liability Liability
attributable to attributable to
nonrequesting petitioner
spouse
3 Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03, 2000-1 C.B. at 448, does
not state that the absence of a significant benefit will weigh in
a petitioner’s favor, but only that a significant benefit will
weigh against relief. Nonetheless, we decided in Ewing v.
Commissioner, 122 T.C. 32, 45 (2004), vacated 439 F.2d 1009 (9th
Cir. 2006) (and other cases cited), that the absence of a
significant benefit should be a positive factor for petitioners.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007