David Bruce Billings - Page 29

                                       - 29 -                                         
                    There is nothing in the legislative history                       
               indicating that the amendment of section 6015(e) by the                
               Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001, 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 time for a taxpayer to submit a request to the                  
               Commissioner for relief under section 6015 regarding                   
               underreported taxes. * * *  [Fn. refs. omitted.]                       
          Id. at 505.                                                                 
               Based upon the Court’s review of the language of section               
          6015(e)(1) both before and after its amendment by the 2001                  
          Consolidated Appropriations Act, the legislative history of that            
          act, and relevant caselaw, the Court held in Ewing I that the               
          amendment of section 6015(e)(1) did not deprive it of its                   
          jurisdiction to review the denial of equitable relief under                 
          section 6015(f) with respect to unpaid tax in a stand-alone                 
          section 6015(f) “nondeficiency” case.  Id. at 505-506.  The Ninth           
          Circuit reversed that holding in Ewing II.  Shortly thereafter,             
          in Bartman, the Eighth Circuit expressed its agreement with the             
          Ninth Circuit.7                                                             
               An appeal in this case normally would lie in the United                
          States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.  Consequently, the           
          Court is not required to follow the opinions of the Ninth Circuit           
          in Ewing II and the Eighth Circuit in Bartman (and in Sjodin).              

               7The Eighth Circuit followed Bartman in Sjodin v.                      
          Commissioner, __ Fed. Appx. __, 97 AFTR 2d 2006-2622 (8th Cir.              

Page:  Previous  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011