- 30 -
THORNTON, J., concurring: I agree with the majority opinion
and write to append additional views in support of it.
“[D]omestic relations are preeminently matters of state
law”. Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581, 587 (1989).
Accordingly, “the Supreme Court has decreed that Federal law
supplants community property law only where the congressional
intent to accomplish such a result is clear and unequivocal.”
Powell v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 489, 494 (1993) (citing Supreme
Court precedents). There is no question or dispute that section
6015(a) supplants community property law for purposes of
determining eligibility for relief from joint and several
liability. But as the majority opinion concludes, there is no
“clear and unequivocal” indication that Congress intended to go
further (as urged by petitioner and the dissenters) and supplant
community property law that would otherwise permit a creditor
(here, the Internal Revenue Service) to reach community assets
and apply them to a debt owed by one spouse alone (here, Mr.
Ordlock). Rather, the legislative history strongly suggests that
Congress did not intend to supplant community property law in
this manner.
The predecessor of section 6015 was section 6013(e), enacted
in the Act of Jan. 12, 1971, Pub. L. 91-679, sec. 1, 84 Stat.
2063. Under section 6013(e), in certain circumstances a
requesting spouse could be eligible for relief from tax liability
with respect to erroneously omitted gross income attributable to
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011