- 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