- 9 -
that petitioner has satisfied those threshold conditions.
In this case, there are three additional elements, which, if
satisfied, would ordinarily result in the granting of relief in
the case of an underpayment (balance due on return). Petitioner
was divorced from intervenor in 2000 and therefore satisfies the
first element. The second element is inapplicable under these
facts because at the time the return was filed, there was no tax
to be paid. Finally, as to the third element, whether the
requesting spouse will suffer economic hardship if relief is not
granted, petitioner has failed to prove that he would be unable
to pay his reasonable basic living expenses were relief denied.
See sec. 301.6343-1(b)(4)(i), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Therefore,
we conclude that petitioner does not qualify for relief under
Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 4.02, 2003-2 C.B. at 298.
Where, as here, the requesting spouse satisfies the
seven threshold conditions set forth in Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec.
4.01 but does not qualify for relief under Rev. Proc. 2003-61,
sec. 4.02, he may still be granted relief if, upon taking into
account all the facts and circumstances, it would be inequitable
to hold the requesting spouse liable for all or part of the
unpaid deficiency. Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 4.03, 2003-2 C.B. at
298, lists six factors to be considered in determining whether to
grant equitable relief. We will now consider petitioner’s
request in the light of those factors.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011