Kaye C. Schlachter - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         
          Indiana.  The case is presently calendared for trial at the                 
          session of the Court commencing on November 27, 2006, in                    
          Albuquerque, New Mexico.                                                    
               After the pleadings were submitted, two Courts of Appeals,             
          those for the Eighth and Ninth Circuits, ruled that the Tax Court           
          lacked jurisdiction to consider denials of relief under section             
          6015(f) in proceedings where no deficiency had been asserted.               
          See Bartman v. Commissioner, 446 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2006), affg.            
          in part and vacating in part T.C. Memo. 2004-93; Commissioner v.            
          Ewing, 439 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2006), revg. 118 T.C. 494 (2002),            
          vacating 122 T.C. 32 (2004).  This Court subsequently reached the           
          same conclusion in Billings v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 7 (2006).             
               Given these developments, respondent on September 21, 2006,            
          filed the above-referenced motion to dismiss for lack of                    
          jurisdiction.  Respondent noted specifically that no deficiencies           
          have been asserted against petitioner or Mr. Schlachter.  The               
          Court issued an order directing petitioner to file any response             
          to respondent’s motion, and petitioner so responded on                      
          October 25, 2006.  Petitioner opens her response with the                   
          statement:  “Petitioner moves that this case be dismissed for               
          lack of jurisdiction upon the ground that the Tax Court lacks               
          jurisdiction under I.R.C. 6015(e) and that the petitioner was not           
          entitled to relief under section 6015(f).”  However, after a                
          brief recitation of facts, petitioner also states:  “Petitioner             






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011