- 53 -
review a claim under section 6015(b) and (c) for relief from a
deficiency.
The most recent amendment to section 6015(e)(1) also is
relevant to my conclusion. Through the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2001 (CAA), Pub. L. 106-554, app. G, sec.
313(a)(3)(A), 114 Stat. 2763A-641 (2000), Congress made a
technical correction to section 6015(e)(1) by inserting after the
word “individual”, the phrase “against whom a deficiency has been
asserted and”. This technical correction was made in conference,
with no counterpart in either the House or the Senate. The
conference report reinforces a plain reading of the inserted
phrase to require the determination of a deficiency as a
prerequisite to the Court’s jurisdiction under section
6015(e)(1). The report enunciates that the main focus of the
statute is on relief from deficiencies and that the equitable
relief from underpayments of tax is a narrowly tailored provision
that is not subject to the same avenues of judicial (Tax Court)
review.10 The conference report states:
10 In fact, the Court’s inability to entertain a claim for
equitable relief under sec. 6015(f) in a nondeficiency case
parallels the Court’s jurisdiction to decide a taxpayer’s income
tax liability under sec. 6213(a). See Hannan v. Commissioner,
52 T.C. 787, 791 (1969). Given the firmly established terrain as
to the Court’s jurisdiction to decide income tax liabilities in
general, I do not find it surprising that Congress chose through
sec. 6015(e)(1) not to give the Court jurisdiction to decide a
claim for equitable relief under sec. 6015(f), absent the
Commissioner’s determination of a deficiency.
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