T.C. Memo. 2006-244
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
KAYE C. SCHLACHTER, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 245-05. Filed November 9, 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.
Kaye C. Schlachter, pro se.
Charles J. Graves, 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 Michael J. Schlachter
(Mr. Schlachter). Petitioner and Mr. Schlachter filed a joint
Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 1997. A joint
Form 1040 was also filed for petitioner and Mr. Schlachter for
1998, although petitioner has at various junctures alleged that
she did not have knowledge of or sign the 1998 return. Each of
these returns reflected a balance due and was not accompanied by
full payment.
In October of 2002, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
received from petitioner a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse
Relief. Petitioner sought relief for underpayments of tax for,
inter alia, 1997 and 1998 under section 6015(f). On October 7,
2004, 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 these documents were filed, petitioner resided in
1
Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
- 3 -
Indiana. The case is presently calendared for trial at the
session of the Court commencing on November 27, 2006, in
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
After the pleadings were submitted, 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 21, 2006,
filed the above-referenced motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction. Respondent noted specifically that no deficiencies
have been asserted against petitioner or Mr. Schlachter. The
Court issued an order directing petitioner to file any response
to respondent’s motion, and petitioner so responded on
October 25, 2006. Petitioner opens her response with the
statement: “Petitioner moves that this case be dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction upon the ground that the Tax Court lacks
jurisdiction under I.R.C. 6015(e) and that the petitioner was not
entitled to relief under section 6015(f).” However, after a
brief recitation of facts, petitioner also states: “Petitioner
- 4 -
is asking this court to please, with due respect, to give her
some equitable relief.”
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
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
- 5 -
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.