Annette D. Goode-Parker - Page 9

                                        - 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                         
               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