Diane C. Lincir - Page 15




                                       - 15 -                                         
          IV.  Parties’ Contentions                                                   
               Both sides treat section 6015(g)(2) as the controlling                 
          statute; their disputes center on a Treasury regulation                     
          interpreting this statute.                                                  
               Petitioner contends that relief under section 6015 was not             
          available to her in the 1989 case and so, under Treasury                    
          regulations, she is to be treated as not having meaningfully                
          participated in the 1989 case, whether or not she in fact                   
          meaningfully participated.  Petitioner concludes that, “as a                
          matter of law she is not barred by the ‘meaningful participation’           
          rule from asserting innocent spouse status under section 6015 in            
          this case.”  Petitioner bases her contention that relief under              
          section 6015 was not available in the 1989 case on the following:           
          (1) When the record was closed in the 1989 case, the 1998 Act had           
          not yet been enacted, so section 6015 relief could not have been            
          claimed; (2) section 6015 as enacted by the 1998 Act required               
          exhaustion of administrative remedies and, even if petitioner had           
          applied promptly when the administrative remedies became                    
          available, she would not have been able to petition this Court              
          “until July 13, 1999–-four months after the Court entered its               
          decision in the 1989 case”;5 (3) until January 17, 2001, when               

               5 The Court entered the decision on Oct. 2, 2000, after                
          resolution of a Rule 155 dispute.  Petitioner may be referring to           
          the date of the Court’s initial opinion in the 1989 case.                   
          Petitioner points out that the Court ordinarily does not permit a           
                                                             (continued...)           






Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007