- 19 -
secs. 6212-6214; Estate of Mueller v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 551,
556 (1993); Woods v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 776, 784 (1989). In
the context of a deficiency proceeding, a claim for innocent
spouse relief historically has been an affirmative defense that
must be set forth in the pleadings.6 See Rule 39; United States
v. Shanbaum, 10 F.3d 305, 311 (5th Cir. 1994); Roberts v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-98; Lerch v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1987-295, affd. 877 F.2d 624 (7th Cir. 1989); Connelly v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-644. A taxpayer is entitled to
raise an affirmative defense to respondent's deficiency
determination. See Estate of Mueller, supra at 556; Woods v.
Commissioner, supra at 784.
In Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 533 (1985), we held
that where a taxpayer files a petition for a redetermination of a
deficiency, we take jurisdiction over the entire tax liability,
not just the items determined to be erroneous in the notice of
deficiency. Consequently, where a taxpayer raises an affirmative
defense to a deficiency determination, we need no additional
basis for our authority to render an opinion on such issues
because the affirmative defense is part of the deficiency
proceeding over which we have jurisdiction. See Rule 39.
Accordingly, in the instant case, our authority to review
6 We equate the affirmative defense of innocent spouse
available pursuant to former sec. 6013(e) with the rights
afforded taxpayers by sec. 6015.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011