- 10 -
spouse of his or her right to intervene in the case.5 Notably,
new Rule 325 does not by its terms impose any substantive
restriction on the nonelecting spouse’s right to intervene in
support of a claim for relief by an electing spouse.6
As previously discussed, petitioner contends that the notice
that respondent issued to Mr. Murray should be stricken because
it is inconsistent with Rule 325. Respondent counters that the
restrictive language in the disputed notice conforms with: (1)
The Court’s express statement in King v. Commissioner, supra at
124-125, that intervention should be for the sole purpose of
challenging the electing spouse’s entitlement to relief; (2) the
Court’s general approach to intervention as articulated in Estate
of Proctor v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-208; and (3) the
approach under rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
5It is worth noting that sec. 6015(h)(2) (formerly sec.
6015(g)) directs the Secretary to prescribe regulations providing
a nonelecting spouse with “notice of, and an opportunity to
participate in, any administrative proceeding with respect to an
election made under subsection (b) or (c) by the other individual
filing the joint return.” Pursuant to this directive, the
Secretary issued sec. 1.6015-6(a)(1), Income Tax Regs., which
states in pertinent part that, upon receipt of a claim for relief
under sec. 6015, the Internal Revenue Service must notify the
nonelecting spouse and “provide the nonrequesting spouse with an
opportunity to submit any information that should be considered
in determining whether the requesting spouse should be granted
relief from joint and several liability.”
6The Note to new Rule 325 likewise does not restrict a
nonelecting spouse’s right to intervene by stating that such
intervention is permitted solely for the purpose of challenging
the electing spouse’s entitlement to relief. See 120 T.C. 714-
715.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011