- 8 -
contends that the doctrine of res judicata does not preclude him
from claiming equitable relief under section 6015(f). We
disagree.
This Court has already rejected petitioner’s precise
contention in a previous case. In Thurner v. Commissioner, 121
T.C. 43, 51-52 (2003), the Court concluded that a claim for
equitable relief under section 6015(f) is subordinate and
ancillary to a claim for relief under section 6015(b) or (c),
and, therefore, that section 6015(f) is subject to the same
standards for the application of the doctrine of res judicata
imposed under section 6015(g)(2). See Fernandez v. Commissioner,
114 T.C. 324, 330-331 (2000). In Thurner v. Commissioner, supra,
the Court thus held that the doctrine of res judicata as
delineated in section 6015(g)(2) with respect to claims for
relief from joint and several liability applies equally to claims
for relief under section 6015(b), (c), and (f). Accordingly, we
also reject petitioner’s same contention in the instant case.
Petitioner litigated the merits of respondent’s notice of
deficiency at trial on May 17, 1999, in Houston, Texas.
Thereafter, a decision was entered that petitioner and Ms. Pena
were liable for income tax of $35,080 and an addition to tax of
$2,490. Petitioner and Ms. Pena did not appeal that decision,
which became final. See secs. 7481(a)(1), 7483. The causes of
action that form the basis for this case and the prior proceeding
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011