T.C. Memo. 2005-299

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

LANNY L. CHRISTENSEN, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 7387-05. Filed December 29, 2005.

James G. LeBloch, for petitioner.

Patrick W. Lucas, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LARO, Judge: Petitioner petitioned the Court under section

6015(e) to redetermine respondent’s determination that petitioner

is not entitled to relief under section 66(c), 6013(e), or 6015
- 2 -

1 Section references are to the applicable versions of the

Internal Revenue Code. Sec. 6013(e) was repealed in 1998 by the

Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998,

Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 3201(a) and (e)(1), 112 Stat. 734, 740.

for 1989 through 1992.1 Respondent moves the Court to strike for

lack of jurisdiction the portion of the petition that seeks

relief under section 66(c) and to dismiss that portion of this

case accordingly. We shall grant that motion. On our own

initiative, we also for lack of jurisdiction shall strike the

portion of the petition that seeks relief under section 6013(e)

and dismiss that portion of the case.

On September 14, 2003, petitioner requested from respondent

relief under section 6015 as to each subject year. On

February 7, 2005, respondent informed petitioner that he was not

entitled to the requested relief. On April 20, 2005, petitioner

petitioned this Court to redetermine whether he was entitled to

any relief under section 6015, or under sections 66(c) and

6013(e). Petitioner resided in Irvine, California, when that

petition was filed.

This Court, like all Federal courts, is a court of limited

jurisdiction. See Flight Attendants Against UAL Offset v.

Commissioner, 165 F.3d 572, 578 (7th Cir. 1999); Estate of Wenner

v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 284, 286 (2001). We acquire our

jurisdiction from Congress and may exercise jurisdiction over a

case only to the extent that Congress has authorized us to do so. 
- 3 -

See Estate of Wenner v. Commissioner, supra at 286; see also

Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). While

petitioner relies upon section 6015(e) in petitioning this Court

to decide whether he is entitled to any relief under section

66(c), we have previously held that section 6015(e) does not give

us jurisdiction to decide that issue. See Bernal v.

Commissioner, 120 T.C. 102 (2003). While the Court does have

jurisdiction to decide a taxpayer’s claim for equitable relief

under section 66(c) in the setting of a so-called deficiency case

commenced under section 6213(a), see, e.g., id. at 107; Beck v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-198, this proceeding is not such a

case.

Petitioner also claims relief under section 6013(e). Under

that section, before its repeal, a claim in this Court for relief

from joint liability was an affirmative defense in a deficiency

proceeding. Section 6013(e) did not allow the Court to grant

relief to a taxpayer, such as petitioner, who filed a so-called

stand-alone petition; i.e., a petition not related to a

deficiency proceeding. See Goldin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

2004-129; Brown v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-187. We lack

jurisdiction to grant petitioner relief under section 6013(e) for

any of the years 1989 through and 1992.
- 4 -

Accordingly,

An order will be issued

striking the portions of the

petition requesting relief under

sections 66(c) and 6013(e) and

dismissing the related portions of

this case.