Hale Exemption Trust - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         
          the nonelecting spouse is allowed to participate at the                     
          administrative level.  See sec. 6015(g)(2).  After a                        
          determination is made (or the Commissioner fails to make a                  
          determination), the nonelecting spouse is given an opportunity to           
          participate in the judicial review of the determination.  See               
          sec. 6015(e)(4).  When these provisions are read together, they             
          reveal Congress’ concern with providing procedural fairness to              
          the nonelecting spouse by allowing him or her the opportunity to            
          be heard on whether relief from joint liability should be                   
          granted.  See Corson v. Commissioner, supra at 365.  Presumably,            
          the purpose of affording the nonelecting spouse an opportunity to           
          be heard first in administrative proceedings and then in judicial           
          proceedings is to ensure that relief from joint liability is                
          granted on the merits after taking into account all relevant                
          evidence.  See id.; see also King v. Commissioner, supra.                   
               While this case arises under our deficiency jurisdiction, we           
          are of the opinion that the nonelecting spouse should have the              
          same rights to participate in the judicial review as their stand-           
          alone counterparts under our section 6015(e) jurisdiction enjoy.            
          The jurisdictional predicate giving rise to the issue of section            
          6015 relief should not determine the rights of the nonelecting              
          spouse to participate in the judicial review of Commissioner’s              
          determinations. See Corson v. Commissioner, supra at 364.                   








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011