- 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