Alioto v. Comm'r

MEMORANDUM OPINION

VASQUEZ, Judge: Respondent determined that petitioner did not qualify for relief from joint and several liability for 1995 and 1996. The issue for decision is whether we have jurisdiction to decide whether petitioner is entitled to relief pursuant to section 6015(f). ¹

Background

Some of the facts have been stipulated. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time she filed the petition, petitioner resided in San Francisco, California.

On or about January 20, 1999, petitioner filed a request for relief from joint and several liability*203 for income taxes pursuant to section 6015(f) for 1995 and 1996. Petitioner admitted that relief is not available under section 6015(b) or (c) for 1995 and 1996. No deficiency was asserted against petitioner for 1995 or 1996.

Discussion

The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Comm'r v. Ewing, 439 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2006), revg. 118 T.C. 494 (2002). Whether this Court has jurisdiction is fundamental and may be raised by a party or on the Court's own motion. Ewing v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. at 495; Fernandez v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 324, 328 (2000).

Recently, the Court held that we lack jurisdiction over "stand- alone" section 6015(f) cases (i.e., cases in which no deficiency has been asserted) such as the case at bar. Billings v. Comm'r, 127 T.C. ___, 127 T.C. 7, 2006 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 21 (2006). Additionally, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the court to which appeal of this case apparently lies, also has held that the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction over "stand alone" section 6015(f) cases (i.e., cases in which no deficiency has been asserted) such as the case at bar. Comm'r v. Ewing, 439 F.3d at 1014-1015.*204

Accordingly, pursuant to Billings and the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's in Ewing, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this case. Billings v. Comm'r, supra; Toppi v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo 2006-182 (dismissing stand-alone section 6015(f) case for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Billings because the Commissioner did not assert a deficiency for any of the years in issue); Stroud v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo 2006-175 (same); see also Comm'r v. Ewing, 439 F.3d at 1014-1015; Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742 (1970), affd. 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971). Therefore, we shall dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.

To reflect the foregoing,

An appropriate order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction will be entered.