Jeffrey Chou and Cindy Chou - Page 13




                                       - 13 -                                         
                    6.  On July 19, 2006, respondent’s Appeals Officer                
               requested a full abatement of the entire tax liability                 
               assessed against petitioners for the taxable year 2001.                
                    7.  Petitioner Cindy Chou’s claim for relief from                 
               joint and several liability under I.R.C. sec. 6015(f)                  
               for the taxable year 2001 is moot, as respondent has                   
               requested an abatement of all tax owed by petitioners                  
               for the taxable year 2001.                                             
                    8.  The only issue remaining in this case concerns                
               whether Petitioner Cindy Chou is entitled to relief                    
               from joint and several liability under I.R.C. sec.                     
               6015(f) for the taxable year 2000.                                     
                    9.  Because a Notice of Determination was not                     
               issued for a Collection Due Process appeal with respect                
               to the taxable year 2000, I.R.C. secs. 6320 and 6330 do                
               not provide the Court with jurisdiction to hear an                     
               appeal of Petitioner Cindy Chou’s claim for relief                     
               under I.R.C. sec. 6015(f) for the taxable year 2000.                   
               Thus, the only basis for the Tax Court to review                       
               respondent’s section 6015(f) determination in this case                
               is section 6015(e).                                                    
          Respondent’s motion for continuance was based on then-outstanding           
          caselaw to the effect that the Court would not have jurisdiction            
          to hear Mrs. Chou’s section 6015(f) claim because no deficiency             
          had been determined.  (Respondent now concedes jurisdiction over            
          that issue based on subsequently enacted legislation, as                    
          discussed below.)                                                           
               Petitioners objected to respondent’s motion for continuance.           
          Petitioners also objected to respondent’s abatement of the                  
          assessment for 2001, accusing respondent of attempting to deprive           
          the Court of jurisdiction over that year.  Respondent’s motion              
          for continuance was denied.                                                 








Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007