- 7 - When this case was tried, section 6013(e) was still in effect. Section 6013(e) was subsequently repealed and replaced by section 6015. Section 6013(e) is no longer applicable in this case. Under these circumstances, the Court will treat petitioner's claim for relief from joint liability as a claim under section 6015.3 See Corson v. Commissioner, supra at 364; Charlton v. Commissioner, supra at 339; Butler v. Commissioner, supra at 281-282. There are several jurisdictional bases upon which this Court may review a claim for relief from joint liability under section 6015. One basis, which survives section 6013(e), is the traditional petition based on a notice of deficiency where the petition includes a claim by one or both spouses for relief from joint liability. Relief claimed in this context has traditionally been characterized as an affirmative defense, and the enactment of section 6015 has not negated this Court's authority to consider a claim for such relief in a "deficiency proceeding". See Corson v. Commissioner, supra at 363; Charlton v. Commissioner, supra at 338-339. The instant case is a deficiency proceeding. Another situation in which this Court has jurisdiction to review a claim for relief from joint liability involves the 3Neither petitioner nor respondent requested a new trial for the presentation of the case under sec. 6015.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011