T.C. Memo. 2006-228
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
DEBRA ANNE BANDERAS, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 7733-05. Filed October 24, 2006.
Held: Petition for determination of relief from
joint and several liability under sec. 6015(f), I.R.C.,
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Billings v.
Commissioner, 127 T.C. 7 (2006), followed.
James R. Monroe, for petitioner.
Miriam C. Dillard, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
WHERRY, Judge: This case arises from a petition for
judicial review filed in response to a determination concerning
- 2 -
relief from joint and several liability under section 6015.1 The
Court has sua sponte raised the question of whether the case
should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Background
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulations of the parties, with accompanying exhibits, are
incorporated herein by this reference. At the time the petition
in this case was filed, petitioner resided in Cape Coral,
Florida.
Prior to his death on November 16, 1999, petitioner was
married to Julio C. Banderas (Dr. Banderas). Petitioner and
Dr. Banderas filed a joint Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax
Return, for 1997. Petitioner also filed a joint Form 1040 for
1999 as a surviving spouse. Both returns reflected a balance due
and were not accompanied by full payment.
In June of 2003, petitioner submitted to the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse
Relief. Petitioner sought relief for underpayments of tax for
1997 and 1999 under section 6015(f). On March 3, 2005, the IRS
issued to petitioner a notice of determination denying her
request for section 6015(f) relief. Petitioner filed a timely
1
Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
- 3 -
petition with this Court contesting the adverse determination,
and a trial was held in November of 2005.
After posttrial briefs were filed, two Courts of Appeals,
those for the Eighth and Ninth Circuits, ruled that the Tax Court
lacked jurisdiction to consider denials of relief under section
6015(f) in proceedings where no deficiency had been asserted.
See Bartman v. Commissioner, 446 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2006), affg.
in part and vacating in part T.C. Memo. 2004-93; Commissioner v.
Ewing, 439 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2006), revg. 118 T.C. 494 (2002),
vacating 122 T.C. 32 (2004). This Court subsequently reached the
same conclusion in Billings v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 7 (2006).
Given these developments, the Court on August 30, 2006,
issued an order directing the parties to show cause why this case
should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Both parties
responded. Respondent, noting specifically that no deficiency
had been asserted against petitioner for the years in issue,
agreed that the Court lacked jurisdiction here. Petitioner
objected to dismissal, broadly referencing concerns of equity,
due process, and equal protection.
Discussion
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may
exercise only the power conferred by statute. E.g., Raymond v.
Commissioner, 119 T.C. 191, 193 (2002); Naftel v. Commissioner,
85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); see also sec. 7442. It likewise is well
- 4 -
recognized, as a corollary to the foregoing principle, that the
Court lacks equitable powers to expand its statutorily prescribed
jurisdiction. E.g., Commissioner v. McCoy, 484 U.S. 3, 7 (1987);
Bokum v. Commissioner, 992 F.2d 1136, 1140 (11th Cir. 1993),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1990-21; Woods v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 776, 785
(1989). Moreover, the existence of jurisdiction in a particular
case is fundamental and may be raised at any point in the
proceeding, either by a party or by the Court sua sponte. E.g.,
Smith v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 36, 40 (2005); Raymond v.
Commissioner, supra at 193; Naftel v. Commissioner, supra at 530.
For the reasons set forth in Billings v. Commissioner,
supra, the Court has concluded that our jurisdiction under the
laws governing joint and several liability does not extend to
review of the Commissioner’s denials of requests for relief
pursuant to section 6015(f) where no deficiency has been
asserted. Nor can equitable or policy concerns expand this
jurisdiction in disregard of the express provisions of the
statute enacted by Congress. Accordingly, we are constrained to
dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
To reflect the foregoing,
An order of dismissal for
lack of jurisdiction will be
entered.