- 16 -
389 U.S. 332, 336 (1967); Piedmont & N. Ry. Co. v. ICC, 286 U.S.
299, 311-312 (1932)).
Our interpretation of section 6015(e) concerns the new
language “against whom a deficiency has been asserted”. However,
section 6015(e)(1)(A) still contains the provision giving this
Court jurisdiction “to determine the appropriate relief available
to the individual under this section” (emphasis added), which, as
previously explained, we have held gives us jurisdiction over the
propriety of equitable relief under section 6015(f). Equitable
relief under section 6015(f) is, and always has been, available
in nondeficiency situations. Under these circumstances, the
amendment to section 6015(e)(1) referring to situations where “a
deficiency has been asserted” and the retention of the language
in that same section giving us jurisdiction over “the appropriate
relief available to the individual under this section” creates an
ambiguity. Therefore, it is appropriate to consult the
legislative history of the amendment made by the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2001.
The conference report accompanying the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2001, provides the following discussion
regarding the amendment of section 6015(e):
Timing of request for relief.--Confusion currently
exists as to the appropriate point at which a request
for innocent spouse relief should be made by the
taxpayer and considered by the IRS. Some have read the
statute to prohibit consideration by the IRS of
requests for relief until after an assessment has been
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011