- 34 -
C.B. at 1005. The conference report further states that it
“follows the House bill and the Senate amendment with respect to
procedural rules”. Id. at 255, 1998-3 C.B. at 1009.
In sum, the legislative history lends strong support to the
view that in enacting section 6015, Congress intended to supplant
community property law only for purposes of making the necessary
allocations to determine eligibility for relief from joint and
several liability, just as had been the case for over a quarter
of a century under former section 6013(e). There is not the
slightest indication that Congress intended to expand the
preemption of State law in the manner urged by petitioner and the
dissenters.
The question arises whether section 6015(a) is so clear and
unequivocal as to require preemption of State community property
law in the manner urged by petitioner and the dissenters,
notwithstanding legislative history to the contrary. I agree
with the majority opinion that the statute is ambiguous in this
regard and accordingly fails to provide the “clear and
unequivocal” expression of congressional intent that the Supreme
Court requires for supplanting community property law. Powell v.
Commissioner, 101 T.C. at 494. In the first instance, for
reasons described in the majority opinion, there is considerable
doubt as to whether allowing (or disallowing) a refund or credit
constitutes a “determination” within the meaning of section
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