- 4 -
request for relief, and that respondent and petitioner are
perpetrating a fraud on the Court. Intervenor’s objections
indicated that respondent had notified him approximately 2 weeks
before the scheduled trial session of respondent’s intentions to
concede the case but that intervenor had nevertheless decided,
for financial reasons, not to appear for the trial.
On December 20, 2005, respondent filed a response to
intervenor’s objections. On January 9, 2006, petitioner filed a
response to intervenor’s objections, urging that intervenor’s
objections be denied and that respondent’s motion for entry of
decision be granted.
On July 25, 2006, this Court issued its Opinion in Billings
v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 7 (2006), holding that the Court does
not have jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s denial of
relief under section 6015(f) in a case where no deficiency has
been asserted. Our holding in Billings was in accord with the
appellate courts’ opinions in Bartman v. Commissioner, 446 F.3d
785 (8th Cir. 2006), affg. in part and vacating T.C. Memo. 2004-
93, and Commissioner v. Ewing, 439 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2006),
revg. 118 T.C. 494 (2002).
On August 17, 2006, this Court ordered the parties,
including intervenor, to file responses addressing the Court’s
jurisdiction over this case in light of the Court’s holding in
Billings v. Commissioner, supra. In his response, filed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007