- 10 -
liability in the future. In support of his position, petitioner
relies on Trent v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-285. We
disagree with petitioner’s contention.
In Trent v. Commissioner, supra, the taxpayer filed a
petition for redetermination of a deficiency with the Court and
then met with an Appeals officer to settle the case, which
meeting occurred 10 days before the effective date of section
6015. In that meeting, the taxpayer raised an innocent spouse
defense, but the Appeals officer informed the taxpayer that then
was not the time to raise the defense. At the time of the
meeting, the taxpayer and the Appeals officer were unaware of the
res judicata effect of closing a deficiency case in light of the
uncertainty of the law. The taxpayer signed a stipulated
decision, which was entered in December 1998, and subsequently
submitted a Form 8857 in May 1999, which respondent denied. The
Court concluded that special circumstances existed to overcome
the bar of res judicata in that petitioner was misled by an
apparent misunderstanding on her part and on the part of the
Appeals officer from raising a claim for joint and several
liability in the prior proceeding.
The special circumstances in Trent v. Commissioner, supra,
are distinguishable from the facts of this case. In the instant
case, the petition in the prior proceeding was filed before the
effective date of section 6015, but, more significantly, the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011