- 22 -
asserted a deficiency against the individual, (2) the individual
has affirmatively elected to have section 6015(b) or (c) apply,
and (3) the taxpayer has timely petitioned the Court to determine
the appropriate relief under section 6015.3 To the extent that
Congress has not provided the Court with jurisdiction to decide a
matter, the Court may not decide it. See Urbano v. Commissioner,
122 T.C. 384, 389 (2004); Fernandez v. Commissioner, 114 T.C.
324, 328 (2000).
I agree with the overruling of Ewing v. Commissioner,
118 T.C. 494 (2002), because that case was wrongly decided.
Section 6015(e)(1) is construed clearly and unambiguously on its
face to provide that the Court is authorized by that section to
decide a claim for equitable relief only where: (1) The
Commissioner has asserted a deficiency against the taxpayer,
(2) the taxpayer has affirmatively elected to have section
6015(b) or (c) apply, and (3) the taxpayer has timely petitioned
the Court to determine the appropriate relief under section 6015.
Accord Bartman v. Commissioner, 446 F.3d 785, 787 (8th Cir. 2006)
(“The language of � 6015(e)(1) is clear and unambiguous”), affg.
3 As discussed in Ewing v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 494, 515
n.1, 519 (Laro, J., dissenting) (2002), revd. 439 F.3d 1009 (9th
Cir. 2006), Congress used the term “equitable relief” to refer to
the relief provided in sec. 6015(f). See also id. (discussing
the other two types of relief provided in sec. 6015(b) and (c)).
As also discussed, the equitable relief provided in sec. 6015(f)
was not available under former sec. 6013(e), but first arose
during consideration in the conference underlying the enactment
of sec. 6015. See id. at 515 n.1, 519, 522-526.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011