- 20 -
We recognize that courts have strictly enforced closing
agreements executed pursuant to section 7121 (and section 6224(c)
for that matter), and they are binding and conclusive on the
parties even if the tax at issue is later declared to be
unconstitutional or in conflict with other Code sections. See
Hopkins v. United States (In re Hopkins), 146 F.3d at 733.
However, in this case, we are dealing with legislation which has
retroactive effect in the case of unpaid tax liabilities and
which we have broadly and expansively construed consistent with
congressional intent. Indeed, we have previously stated that the
rules of section 6015 were designed to correct perceived
deficiencies and inequities apparent in former section 6013(e)
and that this curative legislation should be construed liberally
to effectuate its remedial purpose. Washington v. Commissioner,
120 T.C. 137, 155-156 (2003); Ewing v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. at
503; see also Flores v. United States, 51 Fed. Cl. 49, 53 (2001).
Construing section 6015 liberally, we conclude that Congress did
16(...continued)
spouse has entered into a closing agreement with the Commissioner
that disposes of the same liability that is the subject of the
claim for relief. Sec. 1.6015-1(c)(1), Income Tax Regs. The
final regulations do not specifically address the effect of a
closing agreement entered into before the effective date of sec.
6015, and all the examples in the regulations deal with closing
agreements entered into after 1998. The final regulations are
applicable to all elections or requests for relief filed on or
after July 18, 2002. See sec. 1.6015-9, Income Tax Regs. Thus,
the final regulations are not effective with respect to
petitioner’s request for relief.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011