- 10 -
relief would result in economic hardship. She is gainfully
employed. Rather, she has argued only that it would be unfair
for her to be responsible for one-half of the liability as she
has primary custody of the couple’s two minor children and has
not received regular child support from Mr. Poe. The Court fails
to see, and petitioner has neither raised as an issue or
established through factually credible evidence, that she would
suffer economic hardship if her request for relief from joint
liability were denied.
As to the third factor, as discussed earlier, petitioner
knew at the time that the tax liability was reported that the
liability was not being paid. Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 4.03,
specifically states that actual knowledge by the requesting
spouse that the liability is not being paid is a strong factor
weighing against relief. This strong factor may be overcome only
if the factors in favor of equitable relief are particularly
compelling. We conclude that they are not.
As to the fourth factor, petitioner points to language in
the divorce decree which states that, with regard to the 2002
taxable year, both petitioner and Mr. Poe would be liable for
one-half of any deficiency arising from their 2002 Federal income
tax return. We note, however, that in denying her initial
request for relief, respondent informed petitioner that, while he
was denying petitioner’s individual request for relief, both she
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007