The opinion
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 -
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.
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 Sec. 6013(e) was repealed in 1998 by the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.
- 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.