- 13 -
the standards for obtaining relief is not equivalent to
giving relief where unwarranted.
Corson v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 365; see Hale Exemption Trust
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-89. Although we did not attempt
to determine “the precise contours of the rights granted to a
nonelecting spouse under section 6015(e),” our denial of the
Commissioner’s motion for entry of decision had the effect of
allowing the nonelecting spouse his day in Court. Corson v.
Commissioner, supra at 365.
In King v. Commissioner, supra, the Court delineated the
procedures under which a nonelecting spouse would be permitted to
intervene and challenge an electing spouse’s claim for relief
under section 6015. The circumstances in King differed from
those in Corson in that, while the Commissioner issued separate
notices of deficiency to the taxpayers, only the electing spouse
filed a petition for redetermination with the Court. The sole
issue raised in the electing spouse’s petition was her claim for
relief from joint and several liability under former section
6013(e). While the case was pending, Congress repealed former
section 6013(e) and enacted section 6015. Thereafter, the
Commissioner filed with the Court a report stating that the
Commissioner concluded that the electing spouse qualified for
relief under section 6015(b). The report further stated that the
Commissioner believed that the nonelecting spouse should be
notified of the action and be given an opportunity to participate
in the proceeding. After the Court directed service of a copy of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011