- 13 -
used in section 6330 should be read as referring to both husband
and wife as a single unit, thereby barring respondent from
issuing separate notices of intent to levy to them.
Petitioners’ contention finds no support in the express
language of section 6330. Simply put, section 6330 does not
direct the Commissioner to treat a husband and wife who have
filed a joint return as a single person for purposes of that
provision. Moreover, petitioners’ argument conflicts with
section 6013(d), which provides that “if a joint return is made,
the tax shall be computed on the aggregate income and the
liability with respect to the tax shall be joint and several.”
Because a husband and wife are treated as jointly and severally
liable for the tax due on a joint return, it follows that the
Commissioner may elect to pursue one or both the spouses for the
collection of the tax. Under the circumstances, we hold that
respondent was free to issue a separate notice of intent to levy
to petitioner Dudley Moorhous before issuing a similar notice to
petitioner Dorothy Moorhous.6 Because petitioners are not
treated as one person under section 6330, petitioner Dudley
6 Indeed, in 1998, the Congress directed the Commissioner to
send, whenever practicable, any notice relating to a joint return
under sec. 6013 separately to each individual filing the joint
return. See Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform
Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 3201(d), (g)(1), 112 Stat.
685, 740.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011