- 3 -
See Estate of Wenner v. Commissioner, supra at 286; see also
Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). While
petitioner relies upon section 6015(e) in petitioning this Court
to decide whether he is entitled to any relief under section
66(c), we have previously held that section 6015(e) does not give
us jurisdiction to decide that issue. See Bernal v.
Commissioner, 120 T.C. 102 (2003). While the Court does have
jurisdiction to decide a taxpayer’s claim for equitable relief
under section 66(c) in the setting of a so-called deficiency case
commenced under section 6213(a), see, e.g., id. at 107; Beck v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-198, this proceeding is not such a
case.
Petitioner also claims relief under section 6013(e). Under
that section, before its repeal, a claim in this Court for relief
from joint liability was an affirmative defense in a deficiency
proceeding. Section 6013(e) did not allow the Court to grant
relief to a taxpayer, such as petitioner, who filed a so-called
stand-alone petition; i.e., a petition not related to a
deficiency proceeding. See Goldin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2004-129; Brown v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-187. We lack
jurisdiction to grant petitioner relief under section 6013(e) for
any of the years 1989 through and 1992.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011