- 9 - opportunity to become a party to a proceeding under either such subsection. We have been asked, in this “stand alone” petition filed pursuant to section 6015(e)(1)(A), to decide whether we have authority to review a denial of relief under section 6015(f). Since our jurisdiction in this case is dependent upon section 6015(e)(1)(A), we look to the language of section 6015 to determine whether we have authority to review a denial of relief under section 6015(f). In Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. ___ (2000), respondent argued that section 6015(e) precluded judicial review of claims made pursuant to section 6015(f). We opined in Butler that “We find nothing in section 6015(e) that precludes our review of respondent’s denial of equitable relief to petitioner”. In this case, respondent asserts that, since section 6015(e)(1) provides “in the case of an individual who elects to have subsection (b) or (c) apply”, the language of the statute limits our jurisdiction to the review of an election made under subsection (b) or (c). Therefore, respondent contends, we do not have jurisdiction to review relief under subsection (f). We do not agree, as explained more fully below. When we interpret section 6015(e) to determine the scope of our jurisdiction, our purpose is to give effect to Congress’ intent. To accomplish this, we must begin with the statutory language, which is the most persuasive evidence of the statutoryPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011