- 6 -
refund. That refund, and return of the money I have
paid, would pay the amount I owe on the last two years.
It is important to note, that I did not have use of his
[Mr. Sonnabend’s] income, even though it was community
property.
G. Respondent’s Motion
As previously stated, respondent filed a motion to dismiss
for lack of jurisdiction. The premise of respondent’s motion is
that no section of the Internal Revenue Code confers jurisdiction
on this Court to review the Commissioner’s denial of relief under
section 66(c) in respect of unpaid liability on a separately-
filed return.
Pursuant to notice, respondent’s motion was called for
hearing at the Court’s motions session in Washington, D.C.
Counsel for respondent appeared at the hearing and presented
argument in support of the pending motion. There was no
appearance by or on behalf of petitioner at the hearing; however,
petitioner did file a written statement pursuant to Rule 50(c).
Following the hearing, the Court directed respondent to
supplement his motion to provide certain documents relevant to
the disposition of his motion. Respondent so complied.
Discussion
We begin by emphasizing that the tax in respect of which
petitioner seeks relief is tax that petitioner reported on her
separately filed income tax return for the taxable year 1995.
That tax is principally attributable to community property income
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011