TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Brooke Q. Salom
Docket Number: 13620-09S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 06/23/2010
Pages: 9

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , DC 2021 7 BROOKE Q . SALOM, BSJ Petitioner , v . ) Docket No . 13620-09 S . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the hearing of the above case before Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen, Jr . at Portland, Maine, on May 14, 2010, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the hearing . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an Order And Decision will be entered granting respondent's Amended Motion For Entry Of Decision, filed May 13, 2010, in petitioner's favor . (Signed) Robert N . Armen, Jr. Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . June 23, 2010 SERVED Jun 23 2010 3 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen, Jr . 2 Brooke Q . Salom V . Commissioner Docket No . : 13620-09S 3 May 14, 201 0 4 The Court has decided to render oral findings of 5 fact and opinion in this case, and the following 6 represents the Court's oral findings of fact and 7 opinion . The oral findings of fact and opinion shall 8 not be relied upon as precedent in any other case . 9 This proceeding was heard as a Small Tax Case 10 pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of th e 11 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 12 170 through 175 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 13 Procedure . 14 This bench opinion is made pursuant to th e 15 authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal 16 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the 17 Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 18 Hereinafter in this bench opinion, and unles s 19 indicated otherwise, all section numbers refer to the 20 Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule 21 numbers refer to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 22 Procedure . 23 Brooke Q . Salom (petitioner) appeared on behalf 24 of herself . Derek W . Kelley appeared on behalf of 25 respondent . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 By Notice dated and served on December 10, 2009, 2 this case was calendared for trial at the Court' s 3 trial session commencing on May 13, 2010, in Portland, 4 Maine . 5 On May 4, 2010, respondent filed a Motion For 6 Entry Of Decision under Rule 50 . On that same date, 7 the parties filed a Stipulation Of Settled Issues . 8 Thereafter, by Order dated May 5, 2010, the Court 9 calendared respondent's motion for hearing on May 13, 10 2010, in Portland, Maine . 11 At the call of this case from the calendar , 12 petitioner and counsel for respondent both appeared . 13 The parties filed an Amended Stipulation Of Settled 14 'Issues, and respondent filed an Amended Motion Fo r 15 Entry Of Decision under Rule 50 . Thereupon the matter 16 was presented to the Court . 17 The facts necessary to a ruling on respondent's 18 amended motion are as follows : 19 Petitioner resided in the State of Maine at the 20 time that the petition was filed with the Court . 21 Maine is, of course, within the geographical bounds of 22 the Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit . Thus, i f 23 this case were a regular tax case and not a small tax 24 case, it would be appealable to the 1st Circuit . 25 Petitioner and her former husband, Mark T . Salom , Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4 888 5 1 timely filed a joint return for the calendar year 2 2001, the taxable year in issue . On or abou t 3 September 6, 2004, respondent assessed additional tax 4 for 2001 against petitioner and her former husband . 5 On February 3,'2005, respondent's first 6 collection activity for 2001 took place whe n 7 respondent issued a Final Notice Of Intent To Levy And Notice Of Your Right To A Hearing to petitioner and to petitioner ' s former husband in respect of thei r 10 outstanding liability for 2001 . 11 Petitioner filed a Form 8857, Request Fo r 12 Innocent Spouse Relief , in respect of the taxable year 13 2001 on November 12, 2008 . The request was made under 14 section 6015(b), (c), and (f) . 15 By a Final Appeals Determination dated March 19, 16 2009, respondent ' s Appeals Office in Covington , 17 Kentucky denied petitioner relief on the ground that 18 "You did not file your request timely ." In thi s 19 regard , the Final Determination went on to state as 20 follows : 21 "IRC section 6015 requires innocent spouse claims 22 to be filed no later than two years after we star t 23 collection activity against you . Our records show the 24 date that the IRS first initiated collection activity 25 against you by mailing a Section 6330 Collection Du e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 Process notice was 02/03/2007 [sic] . Your claim was 2 due by February 3, 2007 but your request for relief 3 was not received until November 12, 2008 . " 4 (Parenthetically, we note that the Final Appeal s 5 Determination erroneously referred to the date of the 6 "Section 6330 Collection Due Process notice" a s 7 "02/03/2007", whereas the date of "02/03/2005" was 8 obviously intended, as made manifest by the parties' 9 Amended Stipulation Of Settled Issues . ) 10 On June 4, 2009, petitioner timely filed a 11 Petition For Determination Of Relief From Joint And 12 Several Liability On A Joint Return . In the petition, 13 petitioner focuses solely on section 6015(f) and makes 14 no mention of either section 6015(b) or (c) . Thus , 15 petitioner alleges that she requested relief under 16 section 6015(f) and that respondent erred in denying 17 her request for relief under section 6015(f) . All of 18 the allegations of fact are consistent with a request 19 for relief under section 6015(f), and in the prayer 20 for relief petitioner asks only that the Court hold 21 that "I am entitled to relief under IRC sec . 6015(f) ." 22 In the Amended Stipulation Of Settled Issue s 23 filed May 13, 2010, the parties agree that petitioner 24 would be entitled to equitable relief on the merits 25 under section 6015(f) for 2001 if the request fo r Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 relief under that section were considered timely . The 2 parties further agree that if the request for relie f 3 under section 6015(f) were considered timely, there 4 would be no accuracy-related penalty under sectio n 5 6662 due from petitioner for 2001, after application 6 of section 6015(f) . Finally, the parties agree that 7 if the request for relief under section 6015(f) were considered timely, an overpayment of tax of $4,33 0 9 would exist as to petitioner, after application of 10 section 6015(f) . 11 In his Amended Motion For Entry Of Decision filed 12 May 13, 2010, respondent moves that the Court enter a 13 decision that petitioner is not entitled to equitable 14 relief under section 6015(f) for 2001 "because sh e 15 failed to request relief under section 6015(f) before 16 the two-year deadline provided for under Treas . Reg . § 17 1 .6015-5(b)(1)" . In the alternative, respondent moves 18 that the Court enter a decision in favor of petitioner 19 pursuant to Lantz v . Commissioner , 132 T .C . No . 8 20 (April 7, 2009), on appeal by respondent (7th Cir ., 21 Sept . 17, 2009) . 22 The possibility of equitable relief under section 23 6015(f) arises only if relief to a requesting spouse 24 is not available under either section 6015(b) or (c) . 25 In his Amended Motion For Entry Of Decision , Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i I I 8 1 respondent asserts, citing section 6015(b)(1)(E) and 2 (c)(3)(B), that petitioner's request for innocent 3 spouse relief under section 6015(b) and (c) was not 4 timely because it was made later than two years from 5 the date of respondent's first collection activity, 6 i .e ., because petitioner's Form 8857 was received on 7 November 12, 2008, more than 2 years later from the 8 date of respondent's first collection activity o n February 3, 2005 . Petitioner presumably agrees , 10 because in her petition she asserts only that she is 11 entitled to equitable relief under section 6015(f) . 12 In any event, it is clear that petitioner's request 13 for relief was submitted to respondent over 2 years 14 after the February 3, 2005 collection action, an d 15 section 6015(b) and (c) is unavailable to her . Sec . 16 6015 (b) (1) (E) and (c) (3) (B) . 17 In respondent's view, the two-year statutory 18 deadline applicable to requests for relief unde r 19 either section 6015(b) or (c) is equally applicable to 20 requests for equitable relief under section 6015(f) by 21 virtue of a regulatory deadline established by section 22 1 .6015-5(b)(1), Income Tax Regs . However, in Lantz v . 23 Commissioner , supra, this Court held that sectio n 24 1 .6015-5(b)(1) is an invalid interpretation of section 25 6015(f) . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9 N 1 In his Amended Motion For Entry Of Decision , 2 respondent invites the Court to decline to follow its 3 holding in Lantz v . Commissioner , supra . However , 4 recognizing that the appeal in Lantz is to the 7th 5 Circuit and not to the 1st Circuit, and recognizin g 6 further that the Court might not be inclined to depart 7 from its jurisprudence under the circumstances present 8 in the instant case, respondent moves, in th e 9 alternative, that decision be entered for petitioner 10 pursuant to the Court's holding in Lantz . 11 Section 6015(f) does not impose the 2-yea r 12 limitations period applicable to requests for relief 13 under section 6015(b) and (c) . In Lantz v . 14 Commissioner , we expressly held that respondent's 15 effort to impose a 2-year limitations perio d 16 applicable to requests for equitable relief unde r 17 section 6015(f) constituted an invalid interpretation 18 of that section . 19 We decline to revisit our holding in Lantz v . 20 Commissioner , which was a Court-reviewed opinion . 21 Accordingly, we shall grant respondent's Amende d 22 Motion For Entry Of Decision, filed May 13, 2010, in 23 that decision will be entered for petitioner pursuant 24 to our holding in Lantz and the parties' Amende d 25 Stipulation Of Settled Issues . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 This concludes the Court's oral findings o f 2 fact and opinion in this case . 3 (Whereupon , at 9 :41 a .m ., the bench opinion 4 in the above - entitled matter was concluded . ) 10 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 / / 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888