- 6 -
only to a spouse who is ineligible for relief under subsections
(b) and (c) and who shows that "taking into account all the facts
and circumstances, it is inequitable to hold [him] liable for any
unpaid tax or any deficiency (or any portion of either).”
David and the Commissioner stipulated that he did not
qualify for relief under either section 6015(b) or (c) because no
deficiency was ever asserted against him and his wife. They were
right to do so, because both those subsections require a
deficiency as a condition of relief. See, e.g., Block v.
Commissioner, 120 T.C. 62, 66 (2003). That left David able to
look only for equitable relief under subsection (f), and when the
Commissioner denied it to him, left him with the problem of where
to seek judicial review. When he first came to us, section
6015's jurisdictional provision read:
SEC. 6015(e). Petition for Review by Tax Court.
(1) In general.--In the case of an
individual against whom a deficiency has been
asserted and who elects to have subsection
(b) or (c) apply--[Emphasis added.]
(A) In general.--In addition to
any other remedy provided by law, the
individual may petition the Tax Court
(and the Tax Court shall have
jurisdiction) to determine the
appropriate relief available to the
individual under this section if such
petition is filed--
This was the language we construed in Billings I to require
petitioners like David--i.e., those filing stand-alone section
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007