- 9 - obtain relief from liability under the flush language of section 66(c), which provides: Under procedures prescribed by the Secretary, if, taking into account all the facts and circumstances, it is inequitable to hold the individual liable for any unpaid tax or any deficiency (or any portion of either) attributable to any item for which relief is not available under the preceding sentence, the Secretary may relieve such individual of such liability. To prevail under the flush language of section 66(c), petitioner must prove that respondent’s denial of equitable relief from joint liability under section 66(c) was an abuse of discretion. Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 287-292 (2000); see Beck v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-198. The Court defers to the Commissioner’s determination unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact. Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 125 (2002), affd. 353 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2003). Whether the Commissioner’s determination was an abuse of discretion is a question of fact. The requesting spouse bears the burden of proving that there was an abuse of discretion. Cheshire v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 183, 198 (2000), affd. 282 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2002); Abelein v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-274. We find that petitioner has not carried her burden with respect to the deficiency for 2001 as determined by respondent ($5,921), but as discussed infra, she has carried her burden with respect to herPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007