Stanley K. and Tomi L. Baumann - Page 12

                                       - 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