- 8 -
subsections in “the case of an individual against whom a
deficiency has been asserted.” But see Tax Relief and Health
Care Act of 2006, Pub. L. 1109-432, div. C, sec. 408(a), 120
Stat. 3061-3062 (effective Dec. 20, 2006) (granting jurisdiction
to review innocent spouse determinations under section 6015(f)
regardless of whether there is a deficiency asserted). And this
is where the parties’ views in this case conflict most sharply.
The Commissioner argues that the Parkers’ error did not create
either an “understatement” or a “deficiency,” and so there can be
no relief for Ms. Goode-Parker under either subsection (b) or
(c), and no jurisdiction in this Court. Ms. Goode-Parker
disagrees--in her view, what she and her husband committed was a
simple math error, and math errors can give rise to
deficiencies.7
We begin our analysis by noting that neither section
6015(c)--the section that requires there be a “deficiency”--nor
section 6015(e)--the section giving us jurisdiction to review the
Commissioner’s innocent spouse determinations--defines
7 When the Commissioner finds a “mathematical or clerical
error” on a return, he is entitled to assess what he thinks is
the right amount, but has to send a notice to the taxpayer
involved. See sec. 6213(b)(1). A taxpayer who disagrees with
the Commissioner may demand an immediate abatement of the
assessment; the Commissioner can then continue the fight by
issuing a notice of deficiency. Sec. 6213(b)(2)(A). Here,
because he does not classify errors of the kind that Mr. Parker
made as “mathematical or clerical,” the Commissioner assessed the
$28,446 as the tax shown on the return. See sec. 6201(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011