- 62 -
the commonly accepted definition of the term “assert”, I contend
that it is also clear that (1) petitioner and his wife “asserted”
the deficiency on their amended 1999 return, and (2) respondent
“asserted” the same deficiency when he assessed the additional
tax liability reported on petitioner’s amended 1999 return. If
one concludes, however, that the language of section 6015(e)(1)
is not clear because it is susceptible of more than one
interpretation as outlined above, then recourse to the
legislative history of section 6015(e)(1) as amended is
warranted.
In Ewing I, we reviewed the legislative history of the 2001
amendment to section 6015(e). After quoting pertinent language
in the conference report accompanying the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2001, see H. Conf. Rept. 106-1033, at 1023
(2000), we concluded as follows:
The conference report indicates that the language
“against whom a deficiency has been asserted” was
inserted into section 6015(e) to clarify the proper
time for making a request to the Commissioner for
relief from joint and several liability for tax that
may have been underreported on the return. Congress
wanted to prevent taxpayers from submitting premature
requests to the Commissioner for relief from potential
deficiencies before the Commissioner had asserted that
additional taxes were owed. Congress also wanted to
make it clear that a taxpayer does not have to wait
until after an assessment has been made before
submitting a request to the Commissioner for relief
under section 6015 * * * [Ewing v. Commissioner, 118
T.C. at 505.]
Page: Previous 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011