- 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 her
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007