- 11 -
There is no direct support in the plain language of section
6015 or its legislative history for the proposition that a
nonelecting spouse’s ability to intervene in a section 6015 case
is limited to challenging the electing spouse’s entitlement to
relief. Moreover, new Rule 325 and the Notes thereto are neutral
on the point.7
As we stated in Corson v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 354 (2000),
and King v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 118 (2000), a nonelecting
spouse may intervene in a proceeding before the Court for the
purpose of opposing the electing spouse’s claim for relief. It
is clear that in both Corson and King the nonelecting spouse
opposed the claim for relief. Accordingly, any language
suggesting that a right of intervention is limited to challenging
a claim for relief must be read in the context of the facts of
those cases. In any event, it is a certainty that Congress did
not intend for relief to be granted under section 6015 where
otherwise unwarranted. Corson v. Commissioner, supra at 365. On
the other hand, considering that section 6015 was enacted to
provide taxpayer relief, it is equally certain that Congress did
not intend for relief to be denied where otherwise warranted. In
this regard, we believe that justice requires that the
7The Notes of new Rule 325 include a citation of King v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 118 (2000), for the limited proposition
that the Commissioner is expected to serve a notice of filing
petition and right to intervene in a stand-alone, deficiency, or
other proceeding in which a claim for sec. 6015 relief has been
raised as an affirmative defense. See 120 T.C. 715.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011