1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to

the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue.

T.C. Memo. 2006-175

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

DIANA STROUD, Petitioner, AND THOMAS M. STROUD, Intervenor v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 1116-05. Filed August 22, 2006.

Cruz Saavedra, for petitioner.

Thomas M. Stroud, pro se.

Michael R. Skutley, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

FOLEY, Judge: The issues for decision are whether this

Court has jurisdiction pursuant to section 6015(e),1 to decide

whether Diana Stroud (petitioner) is entitled to relief from
- 2 -

joint Federal income tax liabilities relating to 1994 and 1996,

and if so, whether respondent abused his discretion in denying

petitioner a refund relating to 1994 and 1996.

FINDINGS OF FACT

On November 8, 1978, Thomas and Diana Stroud were married. 

On May 19, 1980, Mr. and Mrs. Stroud created the Stroud Family

Trust (trust) in which they were the cotrustors, cotrustees, and

cobeneficiaries. On June 29, 1981, Mr. and Mrs. Stroud conveyed

their residence, located at 3856 Montego Drive, Huntington Beach,

California (residence), to the trust.

On or about October 19, 1995, Mr. and Mrs. Stroud filed a

joint Federal income tax return relating to 1994 in which they

reported, but failed to pay, a $36,543 tax liability. On

November 20, 1995, respondent assessed the $36,543 liability but

did not issue a notice of deficiency. On June 21, 1996,

respondent filed a notice of Federal tax lien, relating to the

1994 liability, against the residence.

On April 15, 1997, Mr. and Mrs. Stroud filed a joint Federal

income tax return relating to 1996 in which they reported, but

again failed to pay, a $48,939 tax liability. On June 9, 1997,

respondent assessed the $48,939 liability, but did not issue a

notice of deficiency. On December 4, 1997, respondent filed a

notice of Federal tax lien, relating to the 1996 liability,

against the residence.
- 3 -

On October 31, 1999, Mr. and Mrs. Stroud separated and

commenced dissolution proceedings. On July 21, 2000, petitioner,

pursuant to section 6015(f), filed a Form 8857, Request for

Innocent Spouse Relief, for joint income tax liabilities relating

to 1994 and 1996 through 1998. In October of 2000, Mr. and Mrs.

Stroud sold the residence and paid their 1994 and 1996 tax

liabilities.

On March 25, 2002, respondent granted petitioner’s request

for innocent spouse relief relating to 1994 and 1996 but denied

her relief relating to 1997 and 1998. Respondent, however, did

not grant petitioner’s request for refunds of $10,777 and $34,367

that constituted one-half of the payment applied to the 1994 and

1996 income tax liabilities, respectively. On April 4, 2002,

petitioner appealed respondent’s decision denying her a refund

relating to 1994 and 1996. On October 13, 2004, respondent’s

Appeals officer denied petitioner’s appeal regarding her refund

request but upheld respondent’s determinations to grant

petitioner equitable relief relating to 1994 and 1996.

On January 18, 2005, while residing in Fountain Valley,

California, petitioner filed her petition seeking a

redetermination of respondent’s denial of a refund relating to

1994 and 1996.

OPINION

We may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent authorized
- 4 -

by Congress. Estate of Branson v. Commissioner, 264 F.3d 904,

908 (9th Cir. 2001), affg. T.C. Memo. 1999-231. Section 6015(e)

provides that “In the case of an individual against whom a

deficiency has been asserted and who elects to have subsection

(b) or (c) apply * * * [he or she] may petition the Tax Court

(and the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction) to determine the

appropriate relief”. Sec. 6015(e)(1)(A) (emphasis added). 

Because respondent did not assert a deficiency relating to either

1994 or 1996, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review

respondent’s determinations. Sec. 6015(e)(1); Billings v.

Commissioner, 127 T.C. ____ (2006).

Contentions we have not addressed are irrelevant, moot, or

meritless. 

To reflect the foregoing,

An appropriate order of

dismissal for lack of

jurisdiction will be entered.