- 6 -
again calendared for trial and heard pursuant to the provisions
of section 6015. Intervenor participated in the trial and
objected to petitioner’s being relieved of liability under
section 6015. In a supplemental trial memorandum, respondent
asserted that petitioner was not entitled to relief under section
6015(b) or (c).3
In Cheshire v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 183, 189 (2000), the
Court succinctly set forth the legislative history of section
6015 as follows:
For many taxpayers, relief under section 6013(e) was
difficult to obtain. In order to make innocent spouse
relief more accessible, Congress repealed section 6013(e)
and enacted a new innocent spouse provision (section 6015)
in 1998 as part of the Internal Revenue Service
Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA 1998), Pub. L.
105-206, sec. 3201(a), 112 Stat. 734. See H. Conf. Rept.
105-599, at 249 (1998). The newly enacted statute provided
three avenues of relief from joint and several liability:
(1) Section 6015(b)(1) (which is similar to former section
6013(e)) allows a spouse to escape completely joint and
several liability; (2) section 6015(b)(2) and (c) allow a
spouse to elect limited liability through relief from a
portion of the understatement or deficiency; and (3) section
6015(f) confers upon the Secretary discretion to grant
equitable relief in situations where relief is unavailable
under section 6015(b) or (c). Section 6015 generally
2(...continued)
procedural history of this case.
3Pursuant to the Court’s holding in King v. Commissioner,
supra, the Court’s order calendaring this case for further trial
stated that the only issue to be considered by the Court would be
petitioner’s claim for relief under sec. 6015, and the Court
would not consider any challenges to the underlying deficiency by
either petitioner or intervenor.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011