- 11 -
participated in a prior proceeding if, due to the
effective date of section 6015, relief under section
6015 was not available in that proceeding. Also, any
final decisions rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction regarding issues relevant to section 6015
are conclusive and the requesting spouse may be
collaterally estopped from relitigating those issues.
Although not by its terms applicable to petitioner’s request for
relief, the regulation sets forth a rule that appropriately
should apply in this case. In view of the uncertainty of the law
at the time of the meeting between petitioner and McClellan, this
case presents the type of special circumstances that may overcome
the bar of res judicata. See generally Montana v. United States,
440 U.S. 147, 153-155 (1979); Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S.
591 (1948); Worcester v. Commissioner, 370 F.2d 713 (1st Cir.
1966), affg. in part, vacating in part, and remanding T.C. Memo.
1965-199. Because petitioner was precluded by an apparent
misunderstanding on her part and on the part of the Appeals
officer from raising her claim to relief from joint liability in
the prior proceeding, we hold that she is not barred by section
6015(g) from equitable relief under section 6015(f). In view of
respondent’s concession that she is entitled to such relief if we
so hold, we need not address her entitlement to relief under
section 6015(b) or (c).
Restrictions on Collection Activity Under Section 6015(e)(1)(B)
Petitioner argues that the Commissioner incorrectly “levied”
petitioner’s refunds and credits for tax years 1999, 2000, and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011