- 59 -
joint and several liability, and (3) the effects that the
majority finds objectionable. See majority op. pp. 18-22. These
policy choices are for Congress, and not the Court, to make. Our
“task is to interpret the statute as best we can, not to second-
guess the wisdom of the congressional policy choice.” Mansell v.
Mansell, 490 U.S. at 592, 594.
I believe that section 6015(a) and (g) is unambiguous and
that community property laws are to be disregarded in determining
the amount of the section 6015(g)(1) refund. The IRS’s ability
to collect the nonelecting spouse’s liability via section 6321 is
distinct from the relief afforded pursuant to section 6015. See
secs. 6015 (which is part of Chapter 61, Information and Returns,
of the Code), 6321 (which is part of Chapter 64, Collection, of
the Code). As in Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 137
(2003), I believe that Mrs. Ordlock’s relief is not limited
merely to relief from joint and several liability--which is very
little relief indeed as, per the majority, respondent can levy on
her wages, her bank accounts, and her other assets, which are
community property under State law, to satisfy liabilities she
was “relieved” from pursuant to section 6015.
Respectfully, I dissent.
SWIFT, WELLS, COLVIN, and FOLEY, JJ., agree with this
dissenting opinion.
Page: Previous 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011