Stanley K. and Tomi L. Baumann - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         
          months of its filing.  See sec. 6015(e)(1); Mora v. Commissioner,           
          117 T.C. 279 (2001); King v. Commissioner, supra at 122; Corson             
          v. Commissioner, supra at 363; Fernandez v. Commissioner, 114               
          T.C. 324, 329 (2000).  Section 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.  King v. Commissioner,              
          supra at 122; Corson v. Commissioner, supra at 363; Fernandez v.            
          Commissioner, supra at 329.  Finally, a taxpayer may request                
          relief from joint and several liability on a joint return in a              
          petition for review of a lien or levy action.  See secs. 6320(c),           
          6330(c)(2)(A)(i).  The petition in this case was filed in a                 
          deficiency proceeding.  We therefore have jurisdiction.                     
               We next address whether Stanley may contest Tomi’s claim for           
          relief.  We have previously held that one spouse can challenge              
          the other spouse’s claim for relief in a deficiency case.  Corson           
          v. Commissioner, supra.  We determined that we could consider the           
          wife’s claim based on the Court’s traditional deficiency                    
          jurisdiction.  Id. at 363-364.  When the Commissioner negotiated            
          a settlement with the wife concerning relief under section 6015,            
          the husband refused to agree to the negotiated settlement.  The             
          Court denied the motion by respondent for entry of decision                 
          holding that the husband must be allowed to be heard on the                 
          question whether the wife is entitled to relief.  Corson v.                 






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