Esther Ruth Ferris - Page 6

                                        - 5 -                                         
               provide the collection-related notice required by RRA 1998             
               sec. 3501(a).  In this case, respondent’s treatment of the             
               offset as a collection action, coupled with his failure to             
               send petitioner notice of her section 6015 rights as                   
               required by RRA 1998 sec. 3501, resulted in petitioner’s               
               failure to seek section 6015(f) relief within 2 years after            
               the first collection action because she did not know of her            
               rights.  The problem here is not with the language of the              
               revenue procedure per se, but that the revenue procedure has           
               been interpreted in this case in a fashion inconsistent with           
               respondent’s application of the public law, and that                   
               interpretation causes a result that is inconsistent with the           
               statutory scheme.                                                      
                    It would be inequitable if respondent could prevent               
               review of a request for relief under section 6015(f) by                
               failing to inform petitioner of her right to relief in                 
               defiance of a congressional mandate.  Such a result would be           
               contrary to the very purpose of section 6015(f), which is to           
               relieve inequitable situations involving joint liabilities.            
               Respondent’s administrative interpretations are given little           
               weight when inconsistent with a statutory scheme.  United              
               States v. Vogel Fertilizer Co., 455 U.S. 16, 26 (1982); FEC            
               v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., 454 U.S. 27, 30               
               (1981).  Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 5, should not be applied             
               in a manner which frustrates the legislative intent of                 
               section 6015 and the related public law.                               

               It follows, therefore, that there was an abuse of discretion           
          by respondent in denying petitioner’s request for relief under              
          section 6015 on the ground that the 2-year limitation period                
          applied.  Since there was no analysis or evaluation by respondent           
          of petitioner’s claim for section 6015 relief, there was an abuse           
          of discretion by respondent.  Petitioner, therefore, is entitled            
          to consideration of her claim for such relief.  The procedure for           
          that process was recently addressed by this Court in Friday v.              
          Commissioner, 124 T.C. 220 (2005), as follows:                              







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011