T.C. Memo. 2006-210
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
KATHLYN S. STARBUCK, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 24116-04. Filed September 27, 2006.
Robert J. Gumser, for petitioner.
Erin K. Huss, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
KROUPA, Judge: Respondent determined that petitioner is not
entitled to relief from joint and several liability under section
60151 with respect to unpaid taxes reported on joint returns
petitioner and her former spouse filed for 1998 and 1999 (the
years at issue). We have concluded that we lack jurisdiction to
review the Commissioner’s denial of relief under section 6015(f)
1
All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the years at issue, unless otherwise indicated.
-2-
where no deficiency has been asserted, and we shall therefore
dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction on our own motion.
Background
Some of the facts have been stipulated. The stipulation of
facts and the accompanying exhibits are incorporated by this
reference. Petitioner resided in San Diego County, California,
at the time she filed the petition.
Petitioner and her former spouse married in February 1988,
separated in January 2000, and divorced in April 2002. Respondent
did not determine a deficiency in this case. The taxes at issue
are the taxes for 1998 and 1999 that petitioner and her former
spouse reported were due on their joint returns but did not pay.
Petitioner filed a request for relief from her tax
liabilities for the years at issue on Form 8857, Request for
Innocent Spouse Relief, with respondent in July 2003. Respondent
determined that petitioner was not entitled to relief for the
years at issue. Petitioner timely filed a petition with this
Court.
Discussion
After the trial, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, the court to which this case is appealable, held that we
do not have jurisdiction to consider the Commissioner’s denials
of requests for relief under section 6015(f) where no deficiency
has been asserted. Commissioner v. Ewing, 439 F.3d 1009 (9th
Cir. 2006), revg. 118 T.C. 494 (2002), vacating 122 T.C. 32
(2004). We have since come to the same conclusion. Billings v.
-3-
Commissioner, 127 T.C. ____ (2006). After our Opinion was filed
in Billings, we issued an order directing the parties to show
cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. Respondent filed a response to the Court’s order
agreeing that we lack jurisdiction. Petitioner filed a response
to the Court’s order objecting to the dismissal of this case.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may
exercise that jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by
Congress. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985).
Whether this Court has jurisdiction is fundamental, and we may
question our jurisdiction at any time. Smith v. Commissioner,
124 T.C. 36, 40 (2005) (citing Raymond v. Commissioner, 119 T.C.
191, 193 (2002), Neely v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 287, 290 (2000),
and Romann v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 273, 280 (1998)); Naftel v.
Commissioner, supra at 530. As we have concluded that we do not
have jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s denials of
requests for relief under section 6015(f) where no deficiency has
been asserted, we shall dismiss this case for lack of
jurisdiction.
To reflect the foregoing,
An order of dismissal for
lack of jurisdiction will be
entered.