T.C. Memo. 2006-246
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
DEANN MARIE MCCAUSLAND, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 2486-05. Filed November 13, 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.
DeAnn Marie McCausland, pro se.
James E. Cannon, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
WHERRY, Judge: This case is before the Court on
respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The
instant proceeding arises from a petition for judicial review
- 2 -
filed in response to a determination concerning relief from joint
and several liability under section 6015.1 The issue for
decision is whether the Tax Court has jurisdiction under section
6015(e) to review the Commissioner’s determination that
petitioner is not entitled to relief.
Background
Petitioner was formerly married to Matthew A. McCausland
(Mr. McCausland). Petitioner and Mr. McCausland filed a joint
Federal income tax return for 2002. The return reflected a
balance due and was not accompanied by full payment.
In July of 2004, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) received
from petitioner a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief.
Petitioner sought relief for an underpayment of tax for 2002
under section 6015(f). On January 13, 2005, the IRS issued to
petitioner a notice of determination denying her request for
section 6015 relief. Petitioner filed a petition with this Court
contesting the adverse determination. At the time the petition
was filed, petitioner provided an address in New Mexico. The
case is presently calendared for trial at the session of the
Court commencing on November 27, 2006, in Albuquerque, New
Mexico.
1
Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
- 3 -
After the just-described petition was 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, respondent on September 12, 2006,
filed the above-referenced motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction. Respondent noted specifically that no deficiency
for 2002 had been asserted against petitioner or Mr. McCausland.
The Court issued an order directing petitioner to file any
response to respondent’s motion on or before October 11, 2006.
To date, no such response has been received from petitioner.
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
recognized, as a corollary to the foregoing principle, that the
Court generally lacks equitable powers to expand its statutorily
- 4 -
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, 784-785 (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
grant respondent’s motion and to dismiss this case for lack of
jurisdiction.
To reflect the foregoing,
An order of dismissal for
lack of jurisdiction will be
entered.