- 34 -
“against whom a deficiency has been asserted” is not clear,
plain, or unambiguous. The Court’s consideration in Ewing I of
the legislative history of the amendment of section 6015(e)(1)
was proper.
Even assuming arguendo that the term “deficiency” that
appears in section 6015(e)(1) in the phrase “against whom a
deficiency has been asserted” were to have the meaning that the
Court Opinion says it has, the Court Opinion’s conclusions that
rest on that premise are nonetheless logically flawed. It is a
non sequitur for the Court Opinion to conclude that, because
“‘deficiency’ itself has a defined meaning--the amount by which
the tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code exceeds the amount
reported on a return, including an amended return”, Court op. p.
17, the phrase “against whom a deficiency as been asserted”
(1) is “clear”, “plain”, and “not ambiguous”, Court op. pp. 17,
18, 19; (2) establishes a “condition precedent” to the Court’s
jurisdiction under section 6015, Court op. p. 17; and (3) results
in a “deprivation of our jurisdiction over nondeficiency stand-
alone petitions”, Court op. p. 17. The meaning that the Court
Opinion gives to the term “deficiency” that appears in section
6015(e)(1) in the phrase “against whom a deficiency has been
asserted” does not give meaning to that entire phrase; it only
gives the meaning that the Court says it has to the term
“deficiency” used in that phrase. The phrase “against whom a
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011