- 5 -
On February 6, 2006, petitioner filed a petition with the
Court. Petitioner asserted in the petition that he was invoking
the Court’s jurisdiction (1) to redetermine the deficiency under
section 6213(a) and (2) to review respondent’s failure to respond
to petitioner’s request for an allocation of his tax liability
for 1999 under section 6015(c).
On December 15, 2006, respondent filed a motion to dismiss
for lack of jurisdiction asserting that the notice of deficiency
is invalid because the adjustments therein constitute “affected
items” that are dependent upon the completion of partnership-
level proceedings in the District Court case. Secs. 6221, 6225,
6230(a)(2). Respondent further asserts that petitioner submitted
his claim for relief under section 6015(c) prematurely insofar as
the partnership-level proceedings have not been completed, and,
in any event, respondent did not “assert” a deficiency against
petitioner within the meaning of section 6015(e)(1).
Petitioner agrees that the Court lacks jurisdiction in this
case to redetermine a deficiency pursuant to section 6213(a)
because the notice of deficiency is invalid. Petitioner
maintains, however, that he is an “individual against whom a
deficiency has been asserted” within the meaning of section
6015(e)(1), and, therefore, he properly invoked the Court’s
jurisdiction to review his claim for relief under section
6015(c).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007