- 34 -
Commissioner’s belief that the “Commissioner must first examine
both subsections (b) and (c) to determine whether relief is
available under those subsections before determining whether
relief is available under section 6015(f)”. Majority op. p. 6.
The majority’s understanding of the Commissioner’s belief is
at odds with the Treasury Department’s formation of procedural
rules by which the Commissioner must process requests for relief
under section 6015. Specifically, following the Commissioner’s
consideration of petitioner’s request, the Treasury Department
issued proposed regulations interpreting section 6015 to the
contrary of the majority’s finding that the Commissioner treated
petitioner’s request solely for equitable relief as a claim for
all three types of relief under section 6015.2 The proposed
regulations provide inconsistently with the majority’s
understanding that the Commissioner will not consider whether a
taxpayer requesting relief solely under section 6015(f) qualifies
for relief under section 6015(b) or (c). See sec. 1.6015-
1(a)(2), Proposed Income Tax Regs., 66 Fed. Reg. 3894 (Jan. 17,
2001) (“If a requesting spouse seeks relief only under � 1.6015-4
[equitable relief], the Secretary may not grant relief under
2 I understand that proposed regulations are not binding on
this Court. Canterbury v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 223, 246 n.18
(1992). In the instant setting, however, the referenced proposed
regulations speak loudly as to the Commissioner’s “belief” as to
the forms of relief that he will consider when a taxpayer such as
petitioner requests under sec. 6015 solely equitable relief.
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011