- 7 -
under section 6501 that are properly raised by the
parties.
In this case, our jurisdiction over the parties under
section 7436 was invoked through petitioner’s timely filed
petition seeking review of respondent’s notice of
determination. When petitioner pleaded as an affirmative
defense in his petition that respondent’s determination as
to worker classification was barred by expiration of the 3-
year period of limitations under section 6501(a), we
required no additional jurisdiction to address such issue.
* * *
Id. at 292-293.
As a stand alone proceeding, the Court has no jurisdiction
to consider a request for relief from joint liability on a joint
return under section 6015 unless the following three requirements
are met: (1) The taxpayer has filed a timely election pursuant
to section 6015, (2) respondent has notified the taxpayer that
respondent has denied the taxpayer’s request for relief under
that section, and (3) the taxpayer has timely petitioned this
Court for relief under section 6015(e)(1). See sec. 6015. The
record here discloses that none of the procedural requirements
for our jurisdiction under section 6015(e) has been satisfied.
However, we can find no compelling reason to distinguish the
logic and reasoning of this Court in Neely v. Commissioner,
supra. An entitlement to the statutory relief provided by
section 6015 is no less a defense to respondent’s determination
than the statutory relief provided by section 6501(a) in the
Neely case. There, as in the instant case, an affirmative
defense was pleaded in a matter properly before the Court.
Petitioner’s petition under section 6404 is properly before the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011