- 51 -
MARVEL, J., dissenting: Relying on what the Court’s Opinion
asserts is the plain meaning of prefatory language in section
6015(e)(1), the Court holds that it does not have jurisdiction
under section 6015(e)(1) to review the Commissioner’s
determination denying a taxpayer relief under section 6015(f) in
a nondeficiency case. Specifically, the Court’s Opinion
concludes that, in order for us to have jurisdiction over a
taxpayer’s petition for relief under section 6015, the taxpayer
must be a person “against whom a deficiency has been asserted and
who elects to have subsection (b) or (c) apply”. The Court bases
its holding that we have no jurisdiction to decide this case on
its conclusion that petitioner is not an individual “against whom
a deficiency has been asserted”. I disagree. Because I conclude
that petitioner is an individual “against whom a deficiency has
been asserted”, I contend that the Court’s Opinion deciding the
jurisdictional issue against petitioner is in error.
Congress enacted section 6015 in 1998 as part of the
Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998,
Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 3201(a), 112 Stat. 734. As originally
enacted, section 6015(e)(1) provided, in pertinent part, that
(1) In general.--In the case of an individual who
elects to have subsection (b) or (c) apply--
(A) In general.--The individual may petition
the Tax Court (and the Tax Court shall have
jurisdiction) to determine the appropriate relief
available to the individual under this section
* * *
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011