- 22 -
case involved a different claim from the claim which we have
before us. In addition, a critical factor in the decision of the
Court of Appeals was petitioner’s failure to preserve her claim
for relief under section 6013(e) as a defense in the closing
agreement: “We now hold that a taxpayer may not avoid tax
liabilities arising out of a valid closing agreement by asserting
an innocent spouse defense where that defense has not been
preserved in the text of the closing agreement.” Id. at 733.
Given the curative and retroactive effect of section 6015 and
petitioner’s inability to claim section 6015 relief at the time
she entered the closing agreement or in the subsequent bankruptcy
proceedings, we hold that she is not precluded by res judicata or
collateral estoppel from raising her claims to section 6015
relief. See Trent v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-285.17
17See also Friedman v. Commissioner, 82 AFTR 2d 6232, 98-2
USTC par. 50,717 (2d Cir. 1998), vacating and remanding without
published opinion T.C. Memo. 1996-327 (Commissioner conceded that
the provisions of sec. 6015 applied to liabilities that were
unpaid as of July 22, 1998, even though a prior decision denied
the taxpayer relief under sec. 6013(e)).
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