- 40 -
think, a misreckoning after Ewing I and Bartman. [Fn.
ref. omitted.]
Court op. pp. 18-19.
The Court Opinion does not explain why “Reasoning that a
partial repeal of our jurisdiction would have to be in the
legislative history to be effective is * * * a misreckoning after
Ewing I and Bartman.” Id. In any event, I disagree with that
conclusion, even though I agree with the Court Opinion that the
legislative history of the amendment of section 6015(e)(1) does
not indicate that, in adding the phrase “against whom a
deficiency has been asserted”, Congress had in mind a stand-alone
section 6015(f) “nondeficiency” case. That is precisely the
point that the Court was making in Ewing I. In amending section
6015(e)(1), Congress had in mind only the proper timing of a
request for relief from underreported tax in a return, namely, a
“deficiency” situation. Ewing v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. at 505.
Congress did not have in mind a stand-alone section 6015(f)
“nondeficiency” case when it amended section 6015(e)(1) by adding
the phrase “against whom a deficiency has been asserted”. Since
Congress did not have in mind such a case when it enacted the
amendment of section 6015(e)(1), Congress could not have had in
mind depriving, and Congress could not have intended to deprive,
the Court of the jurisdiction that the Court had over such a case
prior to that amendment. Id. at 504-505. If Congress had
intended to deprive the Court of the jurisdiction that it had
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011