TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Robert E. L. Dorn, II
Docket Number: 18687-09
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 12/06/2010
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 ROBERT E . L . DORN, I I, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O R D E R Docket No. 18687-09. Pursuant to Rule 152 (b) , Tax dourt Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith t[o Petitioner and to respondent a copy o the pages of the transcril>t of the trial in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at Tampa, Florida, on October 28, 2010, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the c nclusion of the trial. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, a decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. December 6, 2010 SERVED DEC - 9 2010 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robert Goeke Robert E. L. Dorn, II v. Commissioner Docket No.: 18687-09 Thursday, October 28, 2010 3 THE COURT: The Court has decided to render Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case and the following represents the Co rt's Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion. The Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. The Court renders this Bench Opinion in | accord with Internal Revenue Code Section 7459(b) and Tax Court Rule of Practice and Procedure 152, hereinafter Section references will be to the Internal Revenue Code unless otherwise stated and Rule references will be to the Tax Court Rule of Practice and Procedure. The Court has jurisdiction in this case pursuant to Section 6015(e)| and the Petitioner has the burden of proof pursuant to Rule 142 (a), en& Section 7491,--whèela is not applicable because the Petitioner has not established the elements necessary to shift the burden of proof to Respondent. At the time the Petition in this case was Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 filed the Petitioner resided in Tampa, Florida. The case was broudht after the Petitioner received a final determination regarding this request for relief from joint and såveral liability under Section 6015(f) for the yeats 1996 through 2001. Petitioner and his wife filed joint returns for all of those years. Each of those returns reported a balance of tax due to be paid and the Petitioner and his wife failed to fully pay the total balance due with the returns. Respondent argues as a preliminary matter, that Petitioner's request f r relief was filed more than two years after the initiation of collection action and that, therefore, it is barred pursuant to Treasury Regulation Section 1.6015-5(b) (1). The Court does not have to reach the question of the validity of that regulation in this case. Causes explained herein, we determined that Mr. Dorn is not entitled to relief based upon the application of Section 6015(f) and the merits of his claim for relief. Section 6013(a) allows a husband and wife to make a single return jointliy for Federal Income Tax purposes. If the joint re urn is made the tax liability is the responsibiflity of the spouses jointly. Section 6015 provides a basis on which a Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l 5 spouse having filed a joint return may seek relief from that joint liability. The pertinent portion of Section 6015 in the present case is Section 6015(f). Section 6015(f) provides that under procedures described by the Secretary and taking into account all the facts and circumstances t is inequitable to hold the individual liable that relief should be granted. Respondent has adopted a Revenue Procedure which sets forth a mechanis for determining whether a spouse is entitled to relie based upon equitable princip s under Section 6015(f). Section 4.01 of Revenue Procedure 2003-61 lists threshold conditions that a spouse must meet in order to be eligible to meet the request for relief. Mr. Dorn meets these threshold conditions with the exception of the t o year filing requirement in condition number three, and as stated previously we will not address that requirement, and rather, will consider Mr. Dorn's request on the merits. Section 4.02 of the Revenue þrocedure lists three circumstances which, if they are satisfied, would ordinarily require the granting of relief. Mr. Dorn does not meet any of those circumstances, which means that we must look to Section 4.03 which lists non-exclusive factors to be considered in granting Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 relief if the threshold conditions of 4.01 are met and the taxpayer does not qualify under 4.02. The first of these factors is the marital status. Mr. and Mrs. Dorn remain married, and this would generally be consider d at best a neutral factor for him. Economic hardship is the second factor, and Respondent maintains that Mr. Dorn has failed to show that relief from joint liability will cause him to have economic hardship, and we agree with Respondent in this regard. The third factor is whether Mr. Dorn did not know and had no reason to know that the tax would not be paid. This factor is clearly not favorable to Mr. Dorn, as he filed the joint returns and was aware that the liabilities would not be paid. The fourth factor is whethe Mr. Dorn had a legal obligation to pay or whether his wife had assumed the legal obligation pursuant to a judgment of divorce or some other state court ruling. In this situation, the parties being married to this day, Respondent determined that the fourth factor was neutral, and we agree. The next factor is whether Mr. Dorn received a significant benefit from the unpaid tax. Respondent determined this factor is neutral, and we agree. The next factor, number six in Respondent's Revenue Procedure, is whether Mr. Òorn is current on his tax Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 liabilities after the years in question. Respondent maintains that Mr. Dorn is not current on his subsequent tax liabilities and that this factor weighs against relief . Mr . Dorn håving f ailed to rebut Respondent's assertion, we find that this factor is negative to Mr. Dorn. Factor number seven, in Section 4.03 of the Revenue Procedure is, whether Mr. Dorn was subject to abuse, and there being no showing that he was, this factor is neutral. The eighth factor is whether Mr . Dorn is in good mental or physical health. Finding that he has no present mental or physical disease, Respondent found this factor to be neutral. In review of these factors none are favorable to Mr. Dorn, and we conclude that he is not entitled to relief on the m rits based upon the proper application of Section 4.03 of the Revenue Procedure. Given that conclusion, I find that a decision should be entered for Respondent in this case. This concludes the Court's Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case . (Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888