- 6 -
at trial and does not otherwise participate in the resolution of
his claim. Rule 149(a); Rollercade, Inc. v. Commissioner, 97
T.C. 113, 116-117 (1991). Additionally, Rule 123(d) states that
“A decision rendered upon a default or in consequence of a
dismissal, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, shall
operate as an adjudication on the merits.” However, Rule 123(b)
and (d) does not mention intervenors, and the Court does not
enter a decision in respect of an intervening nonrequesting
spouse. Rather, the decision that is entered with respect to
section 6015 relief is one either granting or denying relief from
joint liability to the requesting spouse.
A nonrequesting spouse is given the right under section
6015(e)(4) to intervene in stand-alone actions involving section
6015 relief. Van Arsdalen v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 135 (2004).
Rule 325(a), Corson v. Commissioner, supra, and King v.
Commissioner, supra, grant a nonrequesting spouse the right to
intervene as a party and to litigate whether the Commissioner
should grant section 6015 relief to a requesting spouse in a
deficiency suit. As noted above, a nonrequesting spouse who
intervenes as a party does not have rights superior to those of
other parties and is subject to the Court’s Rules. Accordingly,
an intervenor who properly has been notified of trial has no
immunity from dismissal for failure to appear in Court when the
case is called for trial. Although Rule 123(b) and (d) does not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011