- 8 -
hold the individual liable for any unpaid tax or deficiency.5
Sec. 6015(f). As previously discussed, Ms. Lewallen is not
entitled to relief under section 6015(b) or (c).
As directed by section 6015(f), the Commissioner has
prescribed guidelines in Rev. Proc. 2003-61, 2003-2 C.B. 296,
modifying Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447, that are to be
used in determining whether it is inequitable to hold a
requesting spouse liable for all or part of the liability for any
unpaid tax or deficiency.6 Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 4.01, 2003-2
C.B. at 297, sets forth seven threshold conditions that must
generally be satisfied before the Commissioner will consider a
request for equitable relief under section 6015(f).
Insofar as her own omitted wage income is concerned, Ms.
Lewallen does not satisfy all of the threshold conditions.
Condition 7 of Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 4.01, requires that the
income tax liability from which the requesting spouse seeks
relief is attributable to an item of the “nonrequesting spouse”,
5 Although normally the Court will review the
Commissioner’s denial of relief under sec. 6015(f) under an abuse
of discretion standard, see, e.g., Jonson v. Commissioner, 118
T.C. 106, 125 (2002), affd. 353 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2003), the
request for relief in this case was not made until the petition
was filed.
6 Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447, was superseded by
Rev. Proc. 2003-61, 2003-2 C.B. 296, which is effective as to
requests for relief filed on or after Nov. 1, 2003, and for
requests for relief pending on Nov. 1, 2003, as to which no
preliminary determination letter had been issued as of that date.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007