- 8 -
return. The Court is sympathetic to petitioner’s situation, but
a spouse requesting relief under section 6015 has a duty of
inquiry. Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 284 (2000).
Based on the foregoing, petitioner had actual knowledge of the
distribution from her IRA, see sec. 1.6015-3(c)(2)(i)(A), Income
Tax Regs., and this precludes the Court from granting her relief
under section 6015(c).
3. Section 6015(f)
Since petitioner is not entitled to relief under section
6015(b) or (c), we consider whether petitioner qualifies for
relief under section 6015(f). Section 6015(f)(1) provides that a
taxpayer may be relieved from joint and several liability if it
is determined, after considering all the facts and circumstances,
that it is inequitable to hold the taxpayer liable for the unpaid
tax or deficiency. This Court reviews the Commissioner’s denial
of relief pursuant to section 6015(f) under an abuse of
discretion standard. Fernandez v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 324,
331 (2000); Butler v. Commissioner, supra at 287-292. Petitioner
bears the burden of proving that respondent’s denial of equitable
relief under section 6015(f) was an abuse of discretion. See
Rule 142(a); Alt v. Commissioner, supra at 311. Petitioner must
demonstrate that respondent exercised his discretion arbitrarily,
capriciously, or without sound basis in fact. Jonson v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007