Ranie M. Raymond v. Commissioner , 119 T.C. No. 11 ( 2002 )

119 T.C. No. 11UNITED STATES TAX COURT
RANIE M. RAYMOND, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 2354-01L. Filed October 22, 2002.
On her 1991 tax return, P’s filing status was
listed as “Married filing separate return”. On Jan. 9,
2001, R sent P a Notice of Determination Concerning
Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330
regarding the 1991 tax year in which R determined that
P was not entitled to raise a spousal defense because
she did not file a joint return. On Feb. 12, 2001, P
sent to the Tax Court a Petition for Lien or Levy
Action Under Code Section 6320(c) or 6330(d). R filed
a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the issue of
whether P is eligible for relief under I.R.C. sec.
6015.
Held: The petition was timely filed in order for
the Court to have jurisdiction to review R’s denial of
spousal relief. Sec. 6015(e)(1), I.R.C.
Held, further, R’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment is granted because there is no genuine issue
as to whether P is entitled to relief under I.R.C. sec.
- 2 -
6015. P is not entitled to relief under I.R.C. secs.
6015(b), (c), and (f) because she did not file a joint
return.
Ranie M. Raymond, pro se.
A. Gary Begun, for respondent.
OPINION
VASQUEZ, Judge: This case is before the Court on
respondent’s motion for partial summary judgment under Rule 121.1
Background
At the time of the filing of the petition, petitioner
resided in Livonia, Michigan. On her 1991 Federal income tax
return, petitioner’s filing status was listed as “Married filing
separate return”. At the time of the filing of the tax return,
no payment was made on the amount reported as due on the tax
return. Respondent applied petitioner’s tax refunds from 1995
and 1998 in partial satisfaction of the amount due for 1991.
On July 11, 2000, respondent sent petitioner a Final Notice:
Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing.2
On January 9, 2001, respondent sent petitioner a Notice of
Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to
the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section
references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all
relevant times.
2
The notice listed that petitioner owed $7,097.82 in
unpaid taxes for 1991 and $8,211.05 in penalties and interest for
that year.
- 3 -
and/or 6330 (notice of determination) regarding her 1991 tax
year. In the notice of determination, respondent determined that
the collection against petitioner should be sustained because
petitioner did not file a joint return and, therefore, was not
entitled to raise a spousal defense.
On February 12, 2001, petitioner sent a letter to the Court
regarding the notice of determination. The Court received the
letter on February 16, 2001. The Court filed petitioner’s letter
as a Petition for Lien or Levy Action Under Code Section 6320(c)
or 6330(d) (petition). On March 14, 2001, the Court received
petitioner’s amended petition, which was filed as an Amended
Petition for Lien or Levy Action Under Code Section 6320(c) or
6330(d).
On June 14, 2001, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not
filed within the time prescribed by section 6330(d). Petitioner
objected to this motion. On January 2, 2002, respondent filed a
Motion to Withdraw Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction. On January 2, 2002, respondent also filed a Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment on the issue of whether petitioner
is eligible for relief under section 6015. On January 30, 2002,
petitioner filed a response to respondent’s motion for partial
summary judgment wherein petitioner objected to the granting of
the motion.
- 4 -
Discussion
Petitioner alleges that she signed a blank form, she did not
fill out the tax return, and she did not earn the income listed
on the tax return. Petitioner filed the petition to request
relief from liability under section 6015 for tax due on the
income listed on her tax return that she allegedly did not earn.
The issues presented are: (1) Whether the petition was
timely filed for this Court to have jurisdiction; and (2) whether
a taxpayer must file a joint return to be eligible for relief
under section 6015.
I. Jurisdiction
It is well settled that this Court can proceed in a case
only if we have jurisdiction and that any party, or the Court sua
sponte, can question jurisdiction at any time, even after the
case has been tried and briefed. Neely v. Commissioner, 115 T.C.
287, 290 (2000); Romann v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 273, 280
(1998); Normac, Inc. & Normac Intl. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142,
146-147 (1988); Brown v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 215, 218 (1982).
Our jurisdiction under section 6330(d)(1) depends on the
issuance of a valid notice of determination and a timely petition
for review. Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 159, 165 (2001).
Section 6330(d)(1) provides that a person may appeal a notice of
determination by filing a petition within 30 days of the notice.
Sec. 6330(d)(1).
- 5 -
We lack jurisdiction to review petitioner’s claim under
section 6330. Petitioner filed a petition with this Court later
than 30 days after the notice of determination.3 We have held
that the 30-day period provided by section 6330(d)(1) is
jurisdictional and cannot be extended. McCune v. Commissioner,
115 T.C. 114, 117 (2000).
However, petitioner raised a spousal defense in the Appeals
Office proceeding before the Commissioner made a final
determination. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(A)(i); sec. 301.6330-1(e)(2),
Proced. & Admin. Regs. In the notice of determination,
respondent determined that petitioner was not entitled to relief
under section 6015 because she did not file a joint return.
The timeliness of the petition, insofar as it seeks review
of the administrative denial of section 6015 relief, is,
therefore, dependent upon section 6015(e)(1).4 Under this
3
Petitioner sent her petition to the Tax Court 34 days
after respondent mailed her the notice of determination.
4
Sec. 6015(e)(1) provides, in pertinent part:
SEC. 6015(e). Petition for Review by Tax Court.--
(1) In General.--In the case of an individual against whom a
deficiency has been asserted and who elects to have subsection
(b) or (c) apply--
(A) In General.--In addition to any other remedy
provided by law, the individual may petition the Tax
Court (and the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction) to
determine the appropriate relief available to the
individual under this section if such petition is
filed--
(continued...)
- 6 -
section, we have jurisdiction to review respondent’s
determination as to section 6015 relief because petitioner filed
her petition within 90 days of the notice of determination.5
4
(...continued)
(i) at any time after the earlier of--
(I) the date the Secretary
mails, by certified or registered
mail to the taxpayer’s last known
address, notice of the Secretary’s
final determination of relief
available to the individual, or
(II) the date which is 6
months after the date such election
is filed with the Secretary, and
(ii) not later than the close of the
90th day after the date described in clause
(i)(I).
5
See sec. 301.6330-1(f)(2), Proced. & Admin. Regs. This
regulation provides:
Q-F2. With respect to the relief available to the
taxpayer under section 6015, what is the time frame
within which a taxpayer may seek Tax Court review of
Appeals’ determination following a CDP hearing?
A-F2. If the taxpayer seeks Tax Court review not only
of Appeals’ denial of relief under section 6015, but
also of relief with respect to other issues raised in
the CDP hearing, the taxpayer should request Tax Court
review within the 30-day period commencing the day
after the date of the Notice of Determination. If the
taxpayer only seeks Tax Court review of Appeals’ denial
of relief under section 6015, the taxpayer should
request review by the Tax Court, as provided by section
6015(e), within 90 days of Appeals’ determination. If
a request for Tax Court review is filed after the 30-
day period for seeking judicial review under section
6330, then only the taxpayer’s section 6015 claims may
(continued...)
- 7 -
II. Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Respondent moved for partial summary judgment on the issue
of whether petitioner is eligible for relief under section 6015.
Respondent argues that petitioner is not entitled to relief under
section 6015 because she did not file a joint tax return.
Rule 121(a) provides that either party may move for summary
judgment upon all or any part of the legal issues in controversy.
Full or partial summary judgment may be granted only if it is
demonstrated that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact
and a decision may be entered as a matter of law. See Rule
121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520
(1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994).
A. Relief Under Section 6015(b) and (c)
Relief is not available to petitioner under section 6015(b)
and (c) because petitioner did not file a joint return. Both
5
(...continued)
be reviewable by the Tax Court.
- 8 -
sections explicitly require that a joint return be filed for
relief to be granted.6 Sec. 6015(b) and (c).
6
Sec. 6015(b) provides:
SEC. 6015(b). Procedures for Relief from
Liability Applicable to All Joint Filers.--
(1) In General.--Under procedures
prescribed by the Secretary, if--
(A) a joint return has been
made for a taxable year;
(B) on such return there is an
understatement of tax attributable
to erroneous items of 1 individual
filing the joint return;
(C) the other individual
filing the joint return establishes
that in signing the return he or
she did not know, and had no reason
to know, that there was such an
understatement;
(D) taking into account all
the facts and circumstances, it is
inequitable to hold the other
individual liable for the
deficiency in tax for such taxable
year attributable to such
understatement; and
(E) the other individual
elects (in such form as the
Secretary may prescribe) the
benefits of this subsection not
later than the date which is 2
years after the date the Secretary
has begun collection activities
with respect to the individual
making the election,
then the other person shall be relieved of
(continued...)
- 9 -
B. Relief Under Section 6015(f)
On its face, section 6015(f) does not require that a joint
return be filed in order for equitable relief to be granted under
that section.7 As directed by section 6015(f), the Commissioner
6
(...continued)
the liability for tax * * * for such taxable
year to the extent such liability is
attributable to such understatement.
[Emphasis added.]
Sec. 6015(c) provides:
SEC. 6015(c). Procedures to Limit Liability for
Taxpayers No Longer Married or Taxpayers Legally
Separated or Not Living Together.--
(1) In General.--Except as provided in
this subsection, if an individual who has
made a joint return for any taxable year
elects the application of this subsection,
the individual’s liability for any deficiency
which is assessed with respect to the return
shall not exceed the portion of such
deficiency properly allocable to the
individual under subsection (d). [Emphasis
added.]
7
Sec. 6015(f) provides:
SEC. 6015(f). Equitable Relief.--Under procedures
prescribed by the Secretary, if--
(1) taking into account all the facts
and circumstances, it is inequitable to hold
the individual liable for any unpaid tax or
any deficiency (or any portion of either);
and
(2) relief is not available to such
individual under subsection (b) or (c),
(continued...)
- 10 -
uses procedures under Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447 (the
revenue procedure), to determine whether an individual qualifies
for relief under that section. Section 4.01 of the revenue
procedure lists seven threshold conditions, including the filing
of a joint return, that must be satisfied before the Commissioner
will consider a request for relief under section 6015(f).8
The legislative history of section 6015 further demonstrates
that Congress intended a joint return requirement to apply to
section 6015(f). The conference agreement accompanying the
enactment of section 6015(f) contemplates that a joint return be
filed as a prerequisite for the grant of equitable relief. H.
Conf. Rept. 105-599, at 254 (1998), 1998-3 C.B. 747, 1008. The
agreement stated:
The conference agreement does not include the
portion of the Senate amendment that could provide
relief in situations where tax was shown on a joint
return, but not paid with the return. The conferees
intend that the Secretary will consider using the grant
of authority to provide equitable relief in appropriate
situations to avoid the inequitable treatment of
spouses in such situations. * * *
7
(...continued)
the Secretary may relieve such individual of such
liability.
8
The revenue procedure provides, in pertinent part:
4.01 Eligibility to be considered for equitable
relief. All of the following threshold conditions must
be satisfied before the Service will consider a request
for equitable relief under sec. 6015(f). * * *
(1) The requesting spouse filed a joint return
for the taxable year for which relief is sought; * * *.
- 11 -
The conferees do not intend to limit the use of
the Secretary’s authority to provide equitable relief
to situations where tax is shown on a return but not
paid. The conferees intend that such authority be used
where, taking into account all the facts and
circumstances, it is inequitable to hold an individual
liable for all or part of any unpaid tax or deficiency
arising from a joint return. * * * [Emphasis added.]
Id. The agreement clarifies that the conferees intended that
relief may be granted if it is inequitable to hold the taxpayer
liable for the unpaid tax or deficiency shown on a joint return.
This requirement of a joint return is also consistent with
the caption to section 6015, Relief From Joint and Several
Liability on Joint Return.
We, therefore, conclude that a joint return must be filed in
order for a taxpayer to be granted equitable relief under section
6015(f).
As a result, we shall grant respondent’s motion for partial
summary judgment because no genuine issue exists as to whether
petitioner is entitled to relief under section 6015. Petitioner
is not entitled to relief under section 6015 because she did not
file a joint return. Because respondent’s motion for partial
summary judgment covers the remaining issues in the instant case,
we treat it as a motion for full summary judgment, which we shall
grant.
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order and
decision will be entered.