- 3 -
Having invoked the jurisdiction of the Tax Court with respect to
Mrs. Kees, petitioners may not unilaterally oust the Court from
jurisdiction. Dorl v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 720 (1972). Under
section 7459(d), once a taxpayer has filed a petition in the Tax
Court, dismissal for any reason other than lack of jurisdiction
requires the Court to enter an order finding the deficiency to be
the amount determined by the Commissioner in the notice of
deficiency, unless the Commissioner reduces the amount of his
claim. Estate of Ming v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 519, 522 (1974);
see also Rule 123(d). This is a result obviously not sought by
petitioner; consequently, petitioners’ motion to dismiss with
respect to Mrs. Kees will be denied.3
FINDINGS OF FACT
During the year in issue, petitioners were married and filed
a joint tax return. Petitioner was employed as a human resources
manager for Arch Mineral Corp. (Arch Mineral). Arch Mineral
funded a long-term disability plan (the disability plan) for its
employees through UNUM Insurance Co. (UNUM). Arch Mineral paid
all the premiums for the disability plan, and petitioners did not
include in income the value of those premiums.
2(...continued)
stipulation of facts, a joint motion to submit the case under
Rule 122, and a letter to respondent requesting that she be
dismissed from the instant case.
3 We note, however, that petitioner Kathryn Kees is still
free to seek relief under the new “innocent spouse” provision,
sec. 6015, added to the Code by the Internal Revenue Service
Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub L. 105-206, sec.
3201(a), 112 Stat. 734.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011