David Bruce Billings - Page 27

                                       - 27 -                                         
          Fernandez v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 324 (2000); Butler v.                   
          Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276 (2000).                                          
               The question that the Court addressed sua sponte in Ewing I            
          was whether the amendment of section 6015(e)(1) deprived the                
          Court of its jurisdiction to review a claim for relief under                
          section 6015(f) from all or a portion of any unpaid tax in a                
          stand-alone section 6015(f) “nondeficiency” case.  Ewing v.                 
          Commissioner, supra at 503.  In resolving that question, the                
          Court analyzed section 6015(e)(1) both before and after its                 
          amendment by the 2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act.6  Id. at             
          502-507.  In analyzing that section after its amendment, the                
          Court stated:                                                               

               6In analyzing sec. 6015(e)(1) as amended by the 2001                   
          Consolidated Appropriations Act, the Court relied on the                    
          following rules of statutory construction:                                  
                    In interpreting section 6015(e), our purpose is to                
               give effect to Congress’s intent. * * * We begin with                  
               the statutory language, and we interpret that language                 
               with reference to the legislative history primarily to                 
               learn the purpose of the statute and to resolve any                    
               ambiguity in the words contained in the language. * * *                
               Usually, the plain meaning of the statutory language is                
               conclusive. * * * If the statute is ambiguous or                       
               silent, we may look to the statute’s legislative                       
               history to determine Congressional intent. * * *                       
               Finally, because the changes to the relief from joint                  
               and several liability rules “were designed to correct                  
               perceived deficiencies and inequities in the prior                     
               version” of the rules, this curative legislation should                
               be construed liberally to effectuate its remedial                      
               purpose. * * *                                                         
          Ewing v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. at 503.                                     

Page:  Previous  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011