Mary Elizabeth Cumings - Page 18




                                       - 17 -                                         
              8.   Liability attribution                                              
              Under Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03(1)(f) and (2)(a), 2000-1            
         C.B. 447, 449, the IRS considered whether the outstanding                    
         liability was attributable to the requesting spouse or the                   
         nonrequesting spouse when determining whether equitable relief               
         was appropriate.  Although Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 4.03, does               
         not list liability attribution as one of the factors for                     
         consideration, we note that the list in Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec.             
         4.03, is not exclusive.                                                      
              The entire outstanding liability is attributable to self-               
         employment taxes arising from Mr. Parker’s self-employment income            
         from two sole proprietorships.  None of the self-employment                  
         income or self-employment taxes arising therefrom is attributable            
         to petitioner.  This factor weighs in favor of granting relief.              
         D.   Conclusion                                                              
              At trial, petitioner’s testimony was consistent with her                
         assertions in the Form 8857, her responses to information                    
         requests from respondent, and the statements outlined in the                 
         revenue agent’s workpapers.  Respondent has not challenged                   
         petitioner’s truthfulness on these matters.  Although we find                
         that petitioner had reason to know that the tax liability would              
         not likely be paid in light of Mr. Parker’s intent to file a                 
         petition in bankruptcy, we nevertheless conclude that respondent             
         abused his discretion in determining that petitioner was not                 







Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007