John Maier III - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         
          the petition and a copy of the Court’s Rule 325 on the                      
          nonelecting spouse, the nonelecting spouse filed with the Court a           
          motion for leave to file notice of intervention (embodying notice           
          of intervention).  The Court subsequently granted the nonelecting           
          spouse’s motion, stating:                                                   
                    We hold that whenever, in the course of any                       
               proceeding before the Court, a taxpayer raises a claim                 
               for relief from joint liability under section 6015, and                
               the other spouse (or former spouse) is not a party to                  
               the case, the Commissioner must serve notice of the                    
               claim on the other individual who filed the joint                      
               return for the year(s) in issue.  The notice shall                     
               advise such other individual of his or her opportunity                 
               to file a notice of intervention for the sole purpose                  
               of challenging the petitioning individual's entitlement                
               to relief from joint liability pursuant to section                     
               6015.  Such notice shall include a copy of * * * Rule                  
               325.  The Commissioner shall at the same time file with                
               the Court a certification of such notice or, in a                      
               stand-alone case brought under section 6015(e)(1)(A),                  
               state in the answer that such notice has been provided.                
               See * * * Rule 324(a)(2).  Any intervention shall be                   
               made in accordance with the provisions of * * * Rule                   
          King v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. at 125.                                      
               The instant case differs fundamentally from Corson and King            
          in that the electing spouse (here Ms. Maier) did not file a                 
          petition with the Court electing to claim relief under section              
          6015.  Ms. Maier did not file such petition with the Court                  
          because respondent granted her claim for relief under section               
          6015(f) at the close of the administrative process.  In light of            
          this distinction, Corson and King do not support petitioner’s               
          contention that he should be permitted to invoke the Court’s                

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