- 18 -
6015(e)(1)(A)(i)(II). We have jurisdiction to make a
determination in this situation, even though there may be no
administrative record. Thus, trial de novo is clearly authorized
and appropriate.
Second, in a deficiency case, we hold a trial de novo
relating to a taxpayer’s affirmative defense that he or she is
entitled to innocent spouse relief under section 6015(f). See,
e.g., Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 287, 292. Adoption of
respondent’s position here would cause us to apply different
procedures in our determinations under section 6015 cases.
We have previously indicated our preference for uniform
procedures under section 6015(e). For example, we have declined
to treat nonelecting spouses in deficiency proceedings
differently from nonelecting spouses in stand alone proceedings
(i.e., cases in which a taxpayer requests relief from joint and
several liability that are independent of any deficiency
proceeding). Corson v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 354, 364 (2000).
Similarly, we believe taxpayers should have the same opportunity
to have a trial de novo relating to entitlement to relief under
section 6015(f) whether relief was raised as an affirmative
defense in a deficiency proceeding, in a stand alone proceeding
where the Commissioner has issued a final determination denying
the taxpayer’s request for relief, or in a stand alone proceeding
where the Commissioner has failed to rule on the taxpayer’s claim
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011