- 21 -
relief under section 6015(f) where a deficiency has not been
asserted." Ewing v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 494, 505 (2002).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the Court’s holding in Ewing v. Commissioner, supra.
Commissioner v. Ewing, 439 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2006), revg. 118
T.C. 494 (2002), vacating 122 T.C. 32 (2004). The United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated and remanded
Sjodin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-205, in which we held
that we have jurisdiction under section 6015(e) to review the
denial of relief under section 6015(f) where a deficiency has not
been asserted. Sjodin v. Commissioner, 174 Fed. Appx. 359 (8th
Cir. 2006), vacating and remanding per curiam T.C. Memo. 2004-
205.
Thereafter, in Billings v. Commissioner, supra, we reconsid-
ered our holding in Ewing v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 494 (2002).
We held in Billings that we do not have jurisdiction under
section 6015(e)(1) to review the denial of relief under section
6015(f) where no deficiency has been asserted.
After we issued our Opinion in Billings, Congress passed the
Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (Act), Pub. L. 109-432,
120 Stat. 2922. The Act amended section 6015(e)(1) to provide
that this Court may review the Commissioner’s denial of relief
under section 6015 in any case where an individual requested
relief under section 6015(f). Id. div. C, sec. 408(a), 120 Stat.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007