- 43 -
I am unable to find in section 6015(e)(1) any grant of
jurisdiction to the Court to decide in a nondeficiency case a
request for equitable relief under section 6015(f). Section
6015(e)(1) provides in plain terms that the Court’s jurisdiction
rests upon (1) the assertion of a deficiency against a taxpayer,
(2) the taxpayer’s making of an election under section 6015(b) or
(c),6 and (3) the taxpayer’s timely petitioning the Court to
determine the appropriate relief under section 6015. Absent a
finding that all of these requirements have been met, I conclude
that the Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to decide a claim
for equitable relief under section 6015(f). When, on the other
hand, all of these requirements are met, I conclude that the
Court is empowered by section 6015(e)(1)(A) “to determine the
appropriate relief available to the individual under this section
[section 6015]”.7 That relief could include, where applicable,
5(...continued)
neither of those two cases involved an election made solely under
section 6015(f) or, more importantly, required that the Court
look solely to sec. 6015(e) for its jurisdiction.
6 As to this second element, the statute provides explicitly
that the Court’s jurisdiction attaches only to those cases where
“an individual * * * elects to have subsection (b) or (c) apply”.
Sec. 6015(e)(1). Thus, even were the Commissioner to treat a
taxpayer who did not make such an election as one who did, a
treatment which as mentioned supra the Treasury Department’s
proposed regulations forbid, that treatment, contrary to the
majority’s thinking, would not be enough to meet this second
element.
7 I read the phrase “under this section” in light of the
(continued...)
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011