- 36 -
Treasury Department’s release of final regulations under section
6330, providing in relevant part that a taxpayer may demand a
face-to-face CDP hearing. Sec. 301.6330-1(d)(2), Q&A-D6 and D7,
Proced. & Admin. Regs. In contrast to the majority, the Treasury
Department has apparently recognized here that the Commissioner’s
assertion of a deficiency and the taxpayer’s making of an
affirmative election under section 6015(b) or (c) are both
prerequisites to relief under those subsections and that the
failure to meet either prerequisite forecloses any need to “first
examine both subsections (b) and (c) to determine whether relief
is available under those subsections”. See also Fernandez v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 324, 331 (2000), whereat the Court stated:
“we conclude, before an individual may petition this court for
review of innocent spouse relief, including relief under
subsection (f), such individual must make an election under
subsections (b) and/or (c).”
This Court is not a Court of unlimited jurisdiction. To the
contrary, this Court is a legislatively created (Article I) Court
that must acquire jurisdiction directly from Congress. Freytag
v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 870 (1991); David Dung Le, M.D.,
Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 268, 269 (2000), affd. 22 Fed.
Appx. 837 (9th Cir. 2001); see also sec. 7442. When the Court
lacks jurisdiction over an issue, the Court does not have the
power to decide it. Ins. Corp. of Ir., Ltd. v. Compagnie des
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011