- 11 -
trial was held on May 17, 1999, well after the effective date of
section 6015.11 We find it remarkable that petitioner argues
that he was not aware that he had to claim relief from joint and
several liability at trial because under the prior law, in
petitioner’s belief, such claim was typically submitted after
trial, which belief is clearly erroneous. Indeed, the matter was
called to the parties’ attention in the prior proceeding when the
Court inquired whether Ms. Pena would be claiming relief from
joint and several liability (which she did not). Petitioner was
on notice that he also could raise a claim for joint and several
liability, but he did not. As such, it follows that section
6015(g)(2) precludes petitioner from claiming relief from joint
and several liability under section 6015(f).
For the reasons stated, we shall grant respondent’s motion
for summary judgment.
We have considered all of the other arguments made by
petitioner, and, to the extent that we have not specifically
addressed them, we conclude that they are without merit.
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order and
decision will be entered.
11It might also be mentioned that although Ms. Trent
appeared pro se in her deficiency action, petitioner was
represented by counsel in his deficiency action.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: May 25, 2011