- 41 -
Court to determine whether a taxpayer in a nondeficiency case4 is
entitled to equitable relief under section 6015(f). The Court
has previously held that the Court has jurisdiction to decide a
claim for equitable relief under section 6015(f) when the Court
has jurisdiction over the proceedings by virtue of another
specific grant of authority. E.g., Fernandez v. Commissioner,
supra (Court decided claim for equitable relief under section
6015(f) in a proceeding subject to the Court’s jurisdiction under
section 6015(e)(1) to review the Commissioner’s determination as
to a claim under section 6015(b) and (c)); Butler v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276 (2000) (Court decided claim for
equitable relief under section 6015(f) in a proceeding subject to
the Court’s jurisdiction under section 6213(a) to redetermine a
deficiency).
In order to decide the Court’s jurisdiction in this case, I
set my focus on the text of section 6015(e)(1) while bearing in
mind the text of the statute as a whole and the statutory scheme
crafted by Congress for relief from joint liability. FDA v.
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 132-133 (2000).
I construe the relevant text with reference to its legislative
4 I use the term “nondeficiency case” to refer to a case
such as this where the Commissioner has not determined a
deficiency against the taxpayer, the taxpayer has never filed
with the Commissioner an election for relief under section
6015(b) or (c), and the taxpayer petitions the Court seeking
solely equitable relief as to an underpayment of tax.
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011