Robby Goodale Gilbert - Page 11

                                       - 10 -                                         
          spouse knew or had reason to know that the reported liability               
          would be unpaid at the time of signing; (3) the requesting spouse           
          benefited significantly from the unpaid liability; (4) the                  
          requesting spouse will not experience economic hardship if relief           
          is not granted; (5) the requesting spouse had not made a good               
          faith attempt to comply with the tax laws in subsequent years;              
          and (6) the requesting spouse has a legal obligation to pay the             
          deficiency.  Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03, makes clear that no             
          single factor is determinative.  The Court considers the                    
          aforementioned factors in determining whether there is an abuse             
          of discretion by respondent in denying equitable relief under               
          section 6015(f) for the underpayments.                                      
               For a taxpayer who seeks relief from an underpayment of                
          income tax due, Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. at 449, questions           
          whether the requesting spouse knew or had reason to know that the           
          income tax liability would not be paid at the time of filing.  A            
          spouse requesting relief under section 6015 has a duty of                   
          inquiry.  Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 284.  Petitioner              
          admitted he was aware that the reported tax liability for 2001              
          would not be paid at the time the return was filed because the              
          combination of the divorce settlement agreement and Ms. Peet’s              
          illicit actions rendered him unable to pay the tax due at the               
          time of filing.  At trial, respondent asserted that petitioner              
          should have known that the tax liability for 2000 would not be              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011