- 20 -
petitioner or are neutral. We conclude that respondent’s denial
of relief under section 6015(f) was an abuse of discretion, and
that, on the basis of all the facts and circumstances, it would
be inequitable to hold petitioner liable for the underpayment of
taxes for 1992-96.
A final procedural note. Respondent contends that we may
consider only the administrative record in deciding this case.
We stated our Court’s position on that issue at Ewing v.
Commissioner, 122 T.C. 32, 44 (2004) (In exercising our
jurisdiction under section 6015(e)(1)(A) “to determine” whether a
taxpayer is entitled to relief under section 6015(f), it is
appropriate for this Court to consider the evidence admitted at
trial), vacated on other grounds 439 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2006).
However, we need not consider respondent’s contention further
because it is clear that petitioner prevails (and that all
8(...continued)
joint return is unpaid and the requesting spouse: (1) Is no
longer married to the nonrequesting spouse; (2) had no knowledge
or reason to know that the tax would not be paid; and (3) will
suffer economic hardship if relief is not granted. Rev. Proc.
2000-15, sec. 4.02, 2000-1 C.B. at 448. Those circumstances are
present here; however, for completeness, we have considered all
of the facts and circumstances. Sec. 6015(f)(1).
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