- 12 - subsection under which Tomi requested relief because he argued, if Tomi requested relief under subsection (b) or (c), then he would be entitled to receive notice of, and have a right to participate in, the determination whether Tomi was entitled to relief. As we understand Stanley’s argument,8 Stanley asserts that Appeals Officer Baty abused his discretion in granting Tomi partial relief under section 6015(f) for 1998 apparently because Stanley did not have an adequate opportunity to participate in respondent’s determination. OPINION This case involves the participatory rights a nonrequesting spouse has in respondent’s determination whether the requesting spouse is entitled to relief under section 6105. The question Stanley asks us to address is how much participation a nonrequesting spouse must be afforded to challenge the other spouse’s claim for relief under section 6015 where both spouses are before the Court in the same deficiency proceeding. Before 8Contrary to counsel’s remarks at trial, this case is not a “stand alone” proceeding commenced under sec. 6015(e). As discussed infra, sec. 6015(e) enables an electing spouse to petition for review of an administrative determination regarding relief, or failure to rule, as a “stand alone” matter independent of a deficiency proceeding. Although this is not a so-called “stand alone” case, sec. 6015(e) provides that the Court shall establish rules providing a nonrequesting spouse with adequate notice and an opportunity to become a party. Sec. 6015(e)(4). Rule 325 requires the Commissioner to notify the nonrequesting spouse and allows the nonrequesting spouse to intervene in a “stand alone” case. See King v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 118 (2000).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011