- 9 -
petitioner had, within the last month, moved to Las Vegas,
Nevada, and had just begun a new job.
After posttrial briefs were filed, 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, 787 (8th Cir. 2006),
affg. in part and vacating in part T.C. Memo. 2004-93;
Commissioner v. Ewing, 439 F.3d 1009, 1013-1014 (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, 17 (2006).
Given these developments, the Court on August 30, 2006,
issued an order directing the parties to show cause why this case
should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Following
responses from both parties, the Court on October 24, 2006,
issued T.C. Memo. 2006-228, holding that we were constrained to
dismiss this case. An order of dismissal for lack of
jurisdiction was entered on the same date.
Thereafter, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Pub.
L. 109-432, div. C, sec. 408, 120 Stat. 3061, amended section
6015(e)(1) to provide that this Court may review the
Commissioner’s denial of relief under section 6015(f) in cases
where no deficiency has been asserted. The amendment applies
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007