- 27 -
contends that section 6015 and its legislative history contain no
guidance or references indicating that a spouse may obtain relief
for her own erroneous items. Additionally, respondent maintains
that cases decided under former section 6013(e) and section 6015
have not allowed relief for a spouse’s own items.
The Commissioner generally is not subject to an award of
litigation costs under section 7430 where the underlying issue is
one of first impression. TKB Intl., Inc. v. United States, 995
F.2d 1460, 1468 (9th Cir. 1993); Estate of Wall v. Commissioner,
102 T.C. 391, 394 (1994); Mid-Del Therapeutic Ctr., Inc. v.
Commissioner, supra; see also Wilkes v. United States, __ F.3d at
__ (citing Nalle v. Commissioner, 55 F.3d 189, 193 (5th Cir.
1995), affg. T.C. Memo. 1994-182, for the proposition that there
is no per se rule that an award of costs under section 7430 can
never be appropriate in the context of an issue of first
impression). In Rowe I, we analyzed various factors listed in
Rev. Proc. 2000-15, supra, in deciding whether respondent abused
his discretion in denying equitable relief. At that time, there
was little guidance on the application of the factors listed in
the Commissioner’s Revenue Procedure and on determining whether
the Commissioner abused his discretion in denying relief under
section 6015(f). Additionally, section 6015(f) and the
legislative history do not specifically discuss whether an
electing spouse is entitled to equitable relief if partial relief
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011