- 18 -
Furthermore, in justifying the Appeals officer’s allocation
of the liabilities equally between petitioner and Mr. Scott,
respondent contends that without more information from petitioner
the Appeals officer could not tell whose income was reported on
the returns. Yet the Appeals officer never requested any
additional information from petitioner and, in contravention of
section 6015(a), applied the community property laws of
California and Idaho. See Mora v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 279,
290 n.8 (2001). Respondent’s own argument demonstrates the
inadequacy of the procedures employed in this case. We conclude
that Robinette is inapplicable to this case.
Our determination with respect to the appropriate relief
available to petitioner under section 6015(f) is made in a trial
de novo, in accordance with Ewing v. Commissioner, supra, and we
may consider matters raised at trial which were not included in
the administrative record.
Petitioner bears the burden of proving that respondent’s
denial of full relief was an abuse of discretion. See Rule
142(a); Alt v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 306, 311 (2002), affd. 101
Fed. Appx. 34 (6th Cir. 2004); Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C.
106, 113 (2002), affd. 353 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2003).
Petitioner must demonstrate that respondent exercised his
discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007