Lynne M. Smith, Petitioner, and Stanley J. Smith, Intervenor - Page 2
- 2 -
(Act). We shall grant respondent’s motion.
In support of respondent’s motion, respondent relies on
Billings v. Commissioner, supra, in which the Court held that it
lacks jurisdiction under section 6015(e)1 to review a determina-
tion under section 6015(f) where no deficiency has been asserted.
Stanley J. Smith, intervenor in this case, filed a response
to respondent’s motion in which he indicated that respondent’s
motion should be granted.
Petitioner filed a response to respondent’s motion (peti-
tioner’s response) in which she indicated that respondent’s
motion should be denied. In support of her position, petitioner
argued in petitioner’s response that “Billings is not wholly
dispositive of this proceeding.” That is because, according to
petitioner, respondent made a wrongful levy with respect to her
taxable years 1998 and 2002, and “the Tax Court has jurisdiction
to address wrongful levy refund claims and equitable relief under
Internal Revenue Code section 6330.”
About five months after the Court issued its opinion in
Billings v. Commissioner, supra, Congress passed the Act. The
Act amended section 6015(e)(1) to provide that the Court may
review respondent’s denial of relief under that section in any
1All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect before its amendment by the Act.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: November 10, 2007