- 9 -
are identical; i.e., petitioner’s tax liability for 1993.
Petitioner was represented by counsel in the prior proceeding,
and petitioner testified as the only witness in the case. In
light of these undisputed facts, petitioner meaningfully
participated in the prior proceeding. Moreover, petitioner did
not, at any time during the prior proceeding, claim relief under
section 6015.10 At the beginning of the trial, the Court
questioned the parties whether Ms. Pena was seeking relief from
joint and several liability. Thus, petitioner was made aware
that he could have raised a claim for relief from joint and
several liability, but he failed to do so.
Nevertheless, petitioner contends that his case presents
special circumstances that overcome the bar of res judicata.
Petitioner argues that there was uncertainty regarding the law
during the pendency of the prior proceeding. Petitioner asserts
that between the date that he filed the petition in the prior
proceeding (June 22, 1998) and the date of trial (May 17, 1999),
respondent had failed to publish specific guidance (and had
failed to inform petitioner) that the res judicata effect of
section 6015(g)(2) might have a serious adverse effect on
petitioner’s right to claim relief from joint and several
10In a petition for redetermination of a deficiency under
sec. 6213(a), a taxpayer may seek relief from joint and several
liability on a joint return by raising the matter as an
affirmative defense. Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 287-
289 (2000).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011