- 7 -
apply if the court determines that the individual
participated meaningfully in such prior proceeding.[8]
As previously indicated, respondent contends that respondent
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Respondent argues
that section 6015(g)(2) bars petitioner from claiming relief from
joint and several liability under section 6015. Specifically,
respondent maintains that petitioner participated meaningfully in
the prior proceeding, and that petitioner failed to raise a claim
for relief under section 6015 in the prior proceeding.
Consequently, respondent contends that section 6015(g)(2)
precludes petitioner from claiming relief from joint and several
liability in the instant proceeding.9
Petitioner objects to respondent’s motion on the ground that
section 6015(g)(2) does not apply in the instant case.
Specifically, petitioner contends that the statutory language of
section 6015(g)(2) “expressly refers only to elections under
subsection (b) or (c) of IRC Section 6015 and expressly omits
subsection (f) EQUITABLE RELIEF OF IRC Section 6015 from being
barred by the doctrine of Res Judicata”. Petitioner thus
8Petitioner does not dispute that he participated
meaningfully in the prior proceeding.
9We note that in support of his contention, respondent
relies on regulations issued under sec. 6015. The regulations
issued under sec. 6015 apply to claims for relief filed on or
after July 18, 2002. Sec. 1.6015-9, Income Tax Regs. The
regulations issued under sec. 6015 are inapplicable in the
instant case because petitioner filed his claim on Jan. 6, 2001.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011