- 15 -
section only over denials of relief, or disputes between the
Commissioner and the electing spouse regarding such relief (i.e.,
partial denials). Hence, their position is that, since the
nonelecting spouse has no right to raise the issue in this Court
if relief is granted prior to a petition by the electing spouse,
an anomalous result is created if the nonelecting spouse is
permitted to pursue litigation simply because the issue was
settled after suit was filed but before trial.
With respect to section 6015(g)(2), both respondent and
Judith aver that any right to participate afforded to Thomas
thereby was not violated. In addition, respondent maintains that
the section has no applicability to the matter at hand because
the decision to grant relief was made not in an administrative
proceeding but in settlement of a pending court proceeding.
We conclude, for the reasons explained below, that concerns
raised by promulgation of the Restructuring Act counsel us to
deny respondent’s motion for entry of decision.
III. Interpretation and Application
As indicated above, the ultimate issue in this case is
whether Thomas’ objection is a sufficient basis for denial of
respondent’s motion. In addressing this question, we must
determine what bearing, if any, the Restructuring Act has on the
right of a nonelecting spouse to litigate a grant of section 6015
relief to the electing spouse.
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