- 11 - this new section whose words seemed on their face to expand our jurisdiction had an esoteric meaning that shrank it instead. We disagreed, looking instead at the class of those covered by the language of the section--individuals who elect to have subsection (b) or (c) apply--and finding nothing in either section 6015(e)'s language or its legislative history "that precludes our review of the Commissioner's denial of equitable relief pursuant to section 6015(f) where the taxpayer has made the requisite election for relief pursuant to section 6015(b) or (c)." Butler, 114 T.C. at 290. Just a short time later, we decided Fernandez v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 324 (2000). Fernandez, unlike Butler, was a "stand-alone" case; i.e., one in which the claim for innocent spouse relief was not raised as a defense to a deficiency but by itself.5 In Fernandez, we held that section 6015(e) also gave us jurisdiction over a stand-alone petition to review the Commissioner's denial of relief under section 6015(f): We first look to the prefatory language contained in section 6015(e)(1) which states: "in the case of an individual who elects to have subsection (b) or (c) apply." We conclude that this language does not contain 4(...continued) determine the appropriate relief available to the individual under this section if such petition is filed * * * 5 The Commissioner actually had asserted a deficiency against Fernandez, though our opinion in the case wasn’t clear on the point. See Ewing I, 118 T.C. at 500.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011