Kathy A. King - Page 11




                                        - 11 -                                          

          to intervene.  As we explained in Corson v. Commissioner, supra               
          at 365:                                                                       
                    Section 6015(e)(1) is structured so that                            
               administrative consideration (or failure to rule) will                   
               precede any court action when innocent spouse status is                  
               raised in a stand alone petition.  Section 6015(g)(2),                   
               in turn, contemplates an opportunity for the                             
               nonelecting spouse to participate at the administrative                  
               level.  Section 6015(e)(4) then speaks of a similar                      
               chance for participation should the matter move from an                  
               administrative to a judicial forum.  Hence, as a                         
               general premise, we believe that these sections, when                    
               read together, reveal a concern on the part of the                       
               lawmakers with fairness to the nonelecting spouse and                    
               with providing him or her an opportunity to be heard on                  
               innocent spouse issues.  Presumably, the purpose of                      
               affording to the nonelecting spouse an opportunity to                    
               be heard first in administrative proceedings and then                    
               in judicial proceedings is to ensure that innocent                       
               spouse relief is granted on the merits after taking                      
               into account all relevant evidence.  After all, easing                   
               the standards for obtaining relief is not equivalent to                  
               giving relief where unwarranted.                                         
               The same rationale applies in this case.  Petitioner is                  
          seeking the same type of relief under section 6015 that would be              
          the issue in any stand-alone case under section 6015(e)(1)(A).                
          Congress believed that when a spouse (or former spouse) sought                
          such relief, the other spouse (or former spouse) who signed the               
          joint return should receive notice and an opportunity to                      
          intervene in order to challenge the propriety of granting such                
          relief.  In order to implement this objective, Congress directed              
          this Court to establish rules.5  Congress also directed the                   



               5See supra note 4.                                                       




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011