- 7 -
granting her relief from joint and several liability under
section 6015(c). Upon learning of the second stipulation, the
nonelecting spouse declined to execute a stipulated decision for
submission to the Court, prompting the Commissioner to file a
motion for entry of decision. In denying the Commissioner’s
motion, the Court stated:
Section 6015(e)(1) is structured so that
administrative consideration (or failure to rule) will
precede any court action when innocent spouse status is
raised in a stand-alone petition. Section 6015(g)(2),
in turn, contemplates an opportunity for the
nonelecting spouse to participate at the administrative
level. Section 6015(e)(4) then speaks of a similar
chance for participation should the matter move from an
administrative to a judicial forum. Hence, as a
general premise, we believe that these subsections,
when read together, reveal a concern on the part of the
lawmakers with fairness to the nonelecting spouse and
with providing him or her an opportunity to be heard on
innocent spouse issues. Presumably, the purpose of
affording to the nonelecting spouse an opportunity to
be heard first in administrative proceedings and then
in judicial proceedings is to ensure that innocent
spouse relief is granted on the merits after taking
into account all relevant evidence. After all, easing
the standards for obtaining relief is not equivalent to
giving relief where unwarranted. [Corson v.
Commissioner, supra at 365.]
Although we did not attempt to determine “the precise contours of
the rights granted to a nonelecting spouse under section
6015(e),” our denial of the Commissioner’s motion for entry of
decision had the effect of allowing the nonelecting spouse his
day in Court. Id.
In King v. Commissioner, supra, the Court described the
circumstances under which a nonelecting spouse would be permitted
to intervene in respect of an electing spouse’s claim for relief
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011