- 5 -
review the Commissioner’s failure to abate interest under all
subsections of section 6404. See Woodral v. Commissioner, 112
T.C. 19, 22-23 (1999). However, the only explicit jurisdiction
given to the Court under this section is a jurisdiction to
determine whether the Secretary’s failure to abate interest under
section 6404 was an abuse of discretion. The Court may order an
abatement of interest where we have determined that the Secretary
has abused his discretion.
There are two primary jurisdictional predicates 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 Butler v. Commissioner, 114
T.C. 276 (2000); Charlton v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 333 (2000).
In a deficiency proceeding, we consider 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).
The second jurisdictional predicate is found in section
6015(e). This section enables an electing spouse to petition for
review of an administrative determination (or failure to make a
determination) regarding relief from liability as a stand alone
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011