- 18 -
applicable. See Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 137, 147
(2003).
At the time of the motion to continue, respondent’s position
was that Commissioner v. Ewing, 439 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2006),
revg. 118 T.C. 494 (2002) and vacating 122 T.C. 32 (2004), was
controlling in this case. In that case, the Court of Appeals
held that the Tax Court did not have jurisdiction to hear cases
involving relief under section 6015(f) where there was no
determination of a deficiency. Respondent now concedes, however,
that the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-432,
120 Stat. 2922, which amended section 6015(e), confers the
necessary jurisdiction with respect to Mrs. Chou’s claim for
relief for the year 2000. Respondent contends, and we agree,
that her claim for 2001 is moot for the reasons discussed above.
The testimony of petitioners at trial with respect to the
allocation of household responsibilities between them was brief
and was credible. It was credible because petitioners did not
make the improbable claims that now appear in the briefs authored
by their counsel, as discussed below.
Respondent asserts that we should disregard the testimony of
petitioners because we should consider only the “administrative
record” in deciding whether it was an abuse of discretion to deny
the relief sought by Mrs. Chou. Respondent acknowledges that
this Court has held that the determination to deny relief under
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007