- 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.
2006).
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011