- 5 -
6015(e)(4). She argues that in the circumstances of this case
section 6015(e)(4) manifests Congress’ intent for the nonelecting
spouse to become a “full player” in the process of determining
whether relief from liability on a joint return should be
granted.
There are two primary jurisdictional bases for this Court to
review a claim for relief from joint and several liability.
First, a claim may be raised as an affirmative defense in a
petition for redetermination of a deficiency filed pursuant to
section 6213(a). See Charlton v. Commissioner, supra; Butler v.
Commissioner, supra. In a deficiency proceeding, we take into
account all the facts and circumstances relevant to ascertaining
the correct amount of the deficiency, including affirmative
defenses. See secs. 6213 and 6214; Butler v. Commissioner, supra
at 287; Woods v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 776, 784-785 (1989);
Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 533 (1985). Relief from
joint liability on a joint return has traditionally been
characterized as an affirmative defense, and passage of the RRA
has not altered our authority to hear it as such. See Butler v.
Commissioner, supra.
The second jurisdictional basis is found in section 6015(e).
This section enables an electing spouse to petition for review of
an administrative determination regarding relief from liability,
or failure to make a determination, as a “stand alone” matter
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011