- 4 -
brought under section 6404. Respondent has not accused
petitioner of any inappropriate practice, such as delay, bad
faith, or dilatory motive in amending the petition. Further,
respondent has not shown that petitioner’s amendment would
prejudice respondent in any respect.
Discussion
Respondent moved for partial summary judgment on the
question of whether we have jurisdiction to decide petitioner’s
section 6015 claim for relief from joint and several liability.
Respondent argues that we lack jurisdiction over the section 6015
claim because petitioner’s right to petition under section 6015
had not matured. Respondent further argues that a claim for
section 6015 relief does not fit within our statutory
jurisdiction to decide a section 6404 proceeding.
Summary judgment is appropriate if there are no genuine
issues as to any material facts and a decision may be rendered as
a matter of law, whereas a partial summary adjudication may be
made which does not dispose of all the issues in the case. Rule
121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520
(1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). There is no dispute
as to any material facts, and this controversy involves a
question that is ripe for partial summary judgment. See Fla.
Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988).
“[T]he Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011