Thomas Corson and Judith Corson - Page 8




                                        - 8 -                                         
          spouse’s income in order for relief to be available.  See sec.              
          6013(e)(4).  Section 6013(e) did not, however, set forth any                
          particular procedures to be followed in seeking relief or any               
          explicit guidelines regarding the availability of judicial                  
          review.                                                                     
               Taxpayers desiring to claim entitlement to the relief                  
          afforded by section 6013(e) typically did so by asserting                   
          innocent spouse status either in their initial petition to this             
          Court for redetermination of a deficiency or in an amendment to             
          such a petition.  See Garvey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-              
          354; Himmelwright v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-114.  The                
          issue would then be settled prior to trial or would remain a                
          contested question for judicial resolution.  See Garvey v.                  
          Commissioner, supra; Himmelwright v. Commissioner, supra.  If the           
          tax liability had been paid before the mailing of a deficiency              
          notice and section 6013(e) was invoked as the basis for a refund,           
          this Court would have no jurisdiction over the issue, and the               
          matter would generally be decided in U.S. District Court.  Cf.              
          sec. 6213(b)(4).                                                            
               Against this statutory and procedural background, the                  
          question of whether one spouse had a right to challenge by                  
          litigation the Commissioner’s decision to grant relief to the               
          other spouse was answered in the negative.  See Estate of Ravetti           
          v. United States, 37 F.3d 1393, 1395-1396 (9th Cir. 1994); Garvey           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011