- 45 -
required the Court’s consideration of a section 6015(f) claim for
equitable relief, the fact of the matter is that neither case
arose in a nondeficiency setting. The taxpayer in Butler v.
Commissioner, supra, raised the section 6015(f) issue as an
affirmative defense in a deficiency proceeding. Accord Estate of
Wenner v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 284 (2001) (taxpayer raised
qualification under sec. 6015 as an affirmative defense in an
interest abatement proceeding). The taxpayer in Fernandez v.
Commissioner, supra, raised the section 6015(f) issue in
connection with an election under section 6015(b) and (c) for
relief from a deficiency. Petitioner, by contrast, has never had
a deficiency for the relevant year and has never made an
election. Petitioner simply asks the Court to grant her
equitable relief from an underpayment of the tax reported on her
return.
Although the legislative history to a statute is secondary
when the Court can apply the plain meaning of unambiguous
statutory text, I recognize that unequivocal evidence of a clear
legislative intent may sometimes override a plain meaning
interpretation and lead to a different result. Consumer Prod.
Safety Commn. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., supra at 108; see also Allen
v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 1, 17 (2002). Here, the legislative
8(...continued)
(Dec. 21, 2000). CAA app. G, sec. 313(f), 114 Stat. 2763A-643.
Page: Previous 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011