- 6 -
independent of any deficiency proceeding. Fernandez v.
Commissioner, supra at 329.
Here, Sylvia’s claim for relief from joint liability was
raised as an amendment to the petition for deficiency
redetermination. No subsequent filing was made to substitute a
claim for relief under section 6015 for the section 6013(e)
claim; the parties apparently assumed that the issue was still
properly before the Court. In such circumstances, we will treat
Sylvia’s request for relief under 6013(e) as a request for relief
under section 6015(c) and treat the petition as so amended. See
Rule 41(b); Corson v. Commissioner, supra at 363-364; Charlton v.
Commissioner, supra at 338-339. We consider Sylvia’s claim
within the framework of our traditional deficiency jurisdiction.
As a threshold matter, we note that “All concessions,
including stipulated settlement agreements, are subject to the
Court’s discretionary review” and may be rejected in the
interests of justice. McGowan v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 599, 607
(1976). In the interests of justice, it is highly desirable that
identical issues that are before a single tribunal receive
identical treatment. We believe that the interests of justice
would be ill served if the rights of the nonelecting spouse were
to differ according to the jurisdictional predicate for the claim
for section 6015 relief.
In a stand-alone proceeding brought under section 6015(e)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011