- 13 -
the action. See, e.g., United States v. Mississippi, 958 F.2d
112 (5th Cir. 1992).
The answer to respondent’s argument is that section
6015(e)(4) confers on a nonelecting spouse an unconditional
statutory right to intervene within the meaning of rule 24(a)(1)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Section 6015(e)(4)
directs the Court to “establish rules which provide the
individual filing a joint return but not making the election * *
* with adequate notice and an opportunity to become a party to a
proceeding”. The statutory language does not authorize the Court
to impose any significant substantive conditions in respect of
the nonelecting spouse’s right to intervene. Consequently, the
Court prescribed the procedures for intervention within new Rule
325 and did so without imposing any substantive conditions on the
nonelecting spouse/intervenor.
Our holding that section 6015(e)(4) confers an unconditional
statutory right to intervene within the meaning of rule 24(a)(1)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is consistent with the
holdings of courts reviewing analogous statutes. See Bhd. of
R.R. Trainmen v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 331 U.S. 519 (1947)
(holding that 49 U.S.C. sec. 17(11) authorized the representative
of railroad employees to intervene as a matter of right in a suit
involving an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission);8
849 U.S.C. sec. 17(11) provided in pertinent part:
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011