David Bruce Billings - Page 19

                                       - 19 -                                         
          history to be effective is, we think, a misreckoning after Ewing            
          I and Bartman.                                                              
               We therefore overrule our holding in Ewing I in light of               
          this subsequent precedent and now construe section 6015(e) as not           
          giving us jurisdiction over nondeficiency stand-alone                       
          petitions.10  But if we now think the disputed phrase is not                
          ambiguous, its effect still seems to us anomalous.  The                     
          legislative history that we reviewed in Ewing I strongly hints              
          that limiting our jurisdiction was not the purpose Congress had             
          in mind in passing the amendment.  Still, "Congress enacts                  
          statutes, not purposes, and courts may not depart from the                  
          statutory text because they believe some other arrangement would            
          better serve the legislative goals."  In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d             
          726, 731-732 (9th Cir. 2002).  Whatever "the gap in the section             
          6015 procedures that this case highlights is not one that can be            
          closed by judicial fiat."  Drake v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 320,             
          326 (2004).                                                                 
               Our reading today may also create some confusion--innocent             
          spouse relief under all subsections of 6015 will remain available           
          in this Court as an affirmative defense in deficiency                       
          redetermination cases because of section 6213(a), as a remedy on            

               10 We stress that we are not revisiting our conclusion in              
          Butler that relief under section 6015(f) is not committed to the            
          Commissioner's unreviewable discretion, Butler, 114 T.C. at 290.            

Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011