- 7 -
available to the individual under section 6015(b) or (c) and it
would be inequitable to hold the individual liable for the tax
liability.4 Petitioner bears the burden of proving that
respondent’s denial of her claim was an abuse of respondent’s
discretion. See Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 137, 146
(2003); Cheshire v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 183, 198 (2000). In
order to prevail, petitioner must demonstrate that respondent
exercised his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without
sound basis in fact or law when he denied her the equitable
relief. See Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 125 (2002),
affd. 353 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2003).
Before the Commissioner will consider a taxpayer’s request
for relief under section 6015(f), the taxpayer must satisfy all
seven threshold conditions listed in Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec.
4.01, 2003-2 C.B. 296, 297.5 These conditions are as follows:
(1) The requesting spouse filed a joint return for the taxable
4 This Court has held that our determination of whether a
taxpayer is entitled to relief under sec. 6015(f) “is made in a
trial de novo and is not limited to matter contained in
respondent’s administrative record”. See Ewing v. Commissioner,
122 T.C. 32, 44 (2004), vacated 439 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2006).
That decision was vacated for lack of jurisdiction. We need not
and do not decide here whether our review of respondent’s denial
of relief under sec. 6015(f) is limited to the administrative
record because our holding would remain the same in any event.
5 Although the deficiencies in tax arose in years before the
revenue procedure’s effective date of Nov. 1, 2003, this revenue
procedure is applicable to petitioner’s case as her request for
relief was made after Nov. 1, 2003.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007