- 24 -
the geographic area where the taxpayer resides; (4) the amount of
property which is available to pay the taxpayer’s expenses; (5)
any extraordinary circumstances; and (6) any other factor that
the taxpayer claims bears on economic hardship. See sec.
301.6343-1(b)(4)(ii), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Respondent contends that petitioner does not satisfy the
economic hardship test because financial statements on the
questionnaire showed that the Smiths’ total monthly income of
$2,478 exceeded their expenses of $2,007 by $471. The Smiths’
monthly income included $1,280 of unemployment compensation.
After Mr. Smith’s unemployment compensation terminated, there was
a monthly deficit of $809, and they were unable to pay their
mortgage, utilities, and food bills. Beginning in February 2003,
the LDS Church paid the Smiths’ mortgage and propane gas bills
and provided them with food. Petitioner has established that she
is unable to pay her basic living expenses.
Petitioner’s divorce left her with modest furnishings and
vehicles encumbered with debt. Petitioner would suffer severe
economic hardship if relief under section 6015(f) were denied.
3. Abuse
Petitioner was not abused by Mr. Scott. Lack of spousal
abuse is not a factor listed in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03(2),
that weighs against granting relief. Therefore, this factor is
neutral. See Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 137, 149
(2003).
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007