- 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