- 35 -
�1.6015-2 [modified innocent spouse relief] or � 1.6015-3 [the
separate liability election].”); see also Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 66 Fed. Reg. 3891 (Jan. 17, 2001) (“If a spouse
requests relief under section 6015(f) alone, relief will only be
considered under that section.” (Emphasis added.)). Although
the majority recognizes that the Treasury Department has issued
proposed regulations under section 6015, the majority makes no
reference to the Secretary’s interpretation of section 6015 as
set forth in this portion of the proposed regulations. This
portion, if finalized as proposed, will stab the heart of the
majority’s reasoning that:
in every case where the taxpayer submits a request to
the Commissioner for relief under section 6015, and
such request includes a claim for relief under section
6015(f), 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.]
In another recent case, Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C.
183, 191 (2001) (Laro, J., dissenting), I dissented to the
Court’s similar refusal to recognize what I believed was a
legislative mandate that taxpayers be afforded face-to-face
collection due process (CDP) hearings upon all proper requests.
That mandate had been recognized by the U.S. Department of
Justice, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Office of Chief
Counsel, and the IRS Office of Appeals. The Court’s
interpretation contrary to my belief was later eroded by the
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011