- 7 -
reasonable to cause petitioner the expense and inconvenience of
filing separate proceedings in this Court. Nor would it be
efficient or reasonable to hold a separate trial for each of
petitioner’s claims.2 We hold that we have jurisdiction to
decide petitioner’s section 6015 claim, and that claim may be
heard in one proceeding with petitioner’s section 6404 claim.
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order will be
issued denying respondent’s motion
for partial summary judgment.
2 Respondent admits that petitioner has the right to
petition this Court because the 6-month period provided for in
sec. 6015(e)(1)(A)(i)(II) has expired. However, respondent
argues that judicial economy would be best served by waiting to
see whether petitioner’s administrative appeal is denied. If the
appeal is denied, respondent suggests holding a stand-alone
proceeding under sec. 6015(e). It appears that respondent seeks
this roundabout approach as a means to provide this Court with
the opportunity to reconsider the holding in Estate of Wenner v.
Commissioner, 116 T.C. 284 (2001). Should respondent grant
petitioner’s administrative appeal of the denial of sec. 6015
relief, respondent will be in a position to concede that
petitioner is entitled to relief in this proceeding.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: May 25, 2011