- 9 -
1983 and 1984 attributable to Robotics, and that those letters
constitute a proper claim for refund of 1983 and 1984 taxes paid
relating to Robotics.
Giving petitioner the benefit of the doubt, we read
petitioner’s pre-September 5, 1997, letters as voicing some of
the elements required for section 6015 relief. However, those
letters did not and could not give respondent sufficient notice
that petitioner sought a refund for 1983 and 1984 under section
6015 because those letters were sent to respondent long before
section 6015 was enacted on July 22, 1998. See Washington v.
Commissioner, 120 T.C. 137, 160-161 (2003) (the taxpayer’s tax
returns filed on or before April 15, 1998, could not adequately
notify the Commissioner of the basis for the taxpayer’s refund
claim because they were filed before section 6015 was enacted);
Bartman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-93.
Under former section 6013(e), repealed in 1998, Internal
Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA), Pub.
L. 105-206, sec. 3201(a), (e)(1), 112 Stat. 734, 740, a claim in
the Tax Court for relief from joint liability was an affirmative
defense in a deficiency proceeding. Former section 6013(e) did
not allow us to grant relief to a taxpayer, such as petitioner,
who filed a "stand-alone” petition (i.e., one not related to a
deficiency proceeding). See Brown v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2002-187. Thus, we are unable to grant relief to petitioner for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011