- 19 -
Respondent contends that, even if the nonrequesting spouse
has a legal obligation pursuant to a divorce decree or agreement
to pay the outstanding tax, this factor does not favor petitioner
because she had reason to know when she signed the divorce decree
that intervenor would not pay the tax due. We disagree.
Respondent provides no grounds to suggest that the settlement
agreement is not fully enforceable against intervenor by
petitioner. We conclude that this factor favors petitioner.
9. Other Factors
The list of factors in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 5, 2000-1
C.B. at 448-449, is not intended to be exhaustive. Id.
Petitioner did not participate in any wrongdoing. The problem
originated with intervenor, who failed to make tax payments while
misrepresenting to petitioner that he would make those payments
as required. Equitable relief is more likely to be appropriate
where concealment, overreaching, or other wrongdoing on the part
of the nonrequesting spouse is present. Hayman v. Commissioner,
992 F.2d 1256, 1262 (2d Cir. 1993), affg. T.C. Memo. 1992-228.
D. Conclusion
Petitioner has presented a strong case for relief from joint
liability under factors promulgated by the Commissioner in Rev.
Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03.8 All of the factors either favor
8 The Commissioner ordinarily will grant relief from joint
liability under sec. 6015(f) where a liability reported in a
(continued...)
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011