-8-
6015(b) or (c), and it would be inequitable to hold the
requesting spouse liable for the tax liability. Respondent
denied Butler’s claim to equitable relief, and Butler bears the
burden of proving that this action was an abuse of respondent’s
discretion. See Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 137, 146
(2003); Cheshire v. Commissioner, supra at 198. In order to
prevail, Butler must demonstrate that respondent exercised his
discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in
fact or law when respondent denied her the equitable relief.2
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 seven
threshold conditions listed in Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 4.01,
2003-2 C.B. 296, 297. These conditions are as follows: (1) The
requesting spouse filed a joint return for the taxable year for
which he or she seeks relief; (2) relief is not available to the
requesting spouse under section 6015(b) or (c); (3) the
2 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 under sec. 6015(f) would remain the
same in any event.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007