- 14 -
may be adjudicated only following a final decision in the related
partnership-level proceeding. Respondent relies primarily on
Life Care Cmtys. of Am. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-95, and
Mann-Howard v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-537, for the
proposition that the spouse of a partner must prosecute a claim
for relief under section 6015 in an affected items proceeding.
Petitioner asserts that various developments in this case,
including the parties’ attempt to settle petitioner’s tax
liability for 1999, and eventually the issuance of both the FPAA
and the invalid notice of deficiency, demonstrate that respondent
“asserted” a deficiency against him within the meaning of section
6015(e)(1)(A). As petitioner sees it, his petition is a valid
stand-alone petition for relief under section 6015(e).
Taking into account the ongoing partnership-level
proceeding, we conclude that respondent has not “asserted” a
deficiency against petitioner within the meaning of section
6015(e)(1)(A). As explained below, petitioner’s claim for relief
under section 6015 is premature and will not crystallize into a
justiciable case or controversy until the underlying partnership-
level proceeding is final and respondent has issued to petitioner
a notice of computational adjustment.
The question of when the Court may exercise jurisdiction to
review a claim for relief from joint and several liability on a
joint return in the context of a TEFRA partnership proceeding is
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007