Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the first part of this article, I discussed the availability of relief for a taxpayer from liability for tax on a joint return that results from his or her spouse's errors or omissions, focusing on the equitable catch-all provided in IRC ' 6015(f). In December 2006, Congress amended the statute explicitly to provide for Tax Court review of IRS determinations not to grant relief under ' 6015(f). Now, I consider how the Tax Court evaluates these claims in relation to the position of the IRS.
Under subsection (f), the Commissioner is authorized to relieve a taxpayer from liability for tax on a joint return if he or she does not meet the requirements for relief under subsections (b) or (c) and 'taking into account all the facts and circumstances, it is inequitable to hold [the taxpayer] liable ' ' The initial determination is committed to the discretion of the Commissioner. In Rev. Proc. 2003-61, 2003-2 C.B. 296, superseding Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 200-1 C.B. 447, the IRS has set out the 'factors' it applies in deciding whether to authorize relief under ' 6015(f). This Revenue Procedure provides the framework for analyzing requests for relief. Section 4.01 identifies seven factors that must be established before the taxpayer is eligible for relief. The important one for this discussion is the requirement that the 'relief is attributable to an item of the [taxpayer's spouse].' This includes a requirement that, in cases involving the failure to pay an assessed tax, the failure to pay must be from assets of the taxpayer's spouse (called the 'nonrequesting spouse'), unless there is misappropriation by the spouse or other, similar misconduct.
Section 4.02 sets out three elements which, when all are satisfied, will 'ordinarily' justify relief. These elements include a reasonable belief that the taxpayer's spouse would pay the tax (no knowledge or reason to know that the tax would not be paid) and economic hardship, which, in the Service's view, would be caused by the imposition of liability (aggravation of existing hardship would not be a reason to grant relief). If these elements do not justify relief, then ' 4.03 describes additional factors to take into account, including knowledge, economic hardship and the fact that the taxpayer received 'significant benefit' from the failure to pay the liability. Note that if enough of these factors are viewed as supporting relief, they can outweigh knowledge (or reason to know) the liability would not be paid.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?