- 13 -
jurisdiction) to determine the
appropriate relief available to the
individual under this section if such
petition is filed--
And here our problem began, because it might seem that the
inclusion of the first new phrase was the inclusion of a new
condition--that an individual seeking innocent spouse relief must
show that the Commissioner is asserting a deficiency against him.
We raised the problem sua sponte in Ewing I, but both the
Commissioner and Ewing took the position that the amendment did
not deprive us of jurisdiction. Ewing I, 118 T.C. at 506.
Given the difficulty of the issue, we analyzed the question
at length, reasoning that
Equitable relief under section 6015(f) is,
and always has been, available in
nondeficiency situations. Under these
circumstances, the amendment to section
6015(e)(1) referring to situations where “a
deficiency has been asserted" and the
retention of the language in that same
section giving us jurisdiction over "the
appropriate relief available to the
individual under this section" creates an
ambiguity.
Id. at 504.
Having found an ambiguity, we then consulted the legislative
history and found nothing
indicating that the amendment of section
6015(e) * * * was intended to eliminate our
jurisdiction regarding claims for equitable
relief under section 6015(f) over which we
previously had jurisdiction. The stated
purpose for inserting the language "against
whom a deficiency has been asserted" into
section 6015(e) was to clarify the proper
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011