United States v. Pollock

United States v. Pollock

Opinion

ORDER STAYING CASE, GRANTING DEFENDANT ARLENE POLLOCK 30 DAYS TO FILE FOR RELIEF IN UNITED STATES TAX COURT

This Cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant Arlene Pollock (DE 38), filed March 16, 2007. The Court has reviewed the record and is fully advised in the premises.

Plaintiff United States instituted this action to recover unpaid federal tax liabilities from the Defendants  [*2] William and Arlene Pollock, a formerly married couple. The amounts sought are $ 412,874.36 for unpaid federal income tax liabilities, and $ 351,511.05 for unpaid trust fund recovery penalties.

The Pollocks were divorced in November 2000, and are represented by separate counsel. William Pollock did not contest the entry of summary judgment against him for the amounts sought, and I entered an Order granting summary judgment as to Mr. Pollock (DE 66). Arlene Pollock contests summary judgment, arguing that she is entitled to innocent spouse relief pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6015(f). ¹

Ms. Pollock applied to the IRS for innocent spouse relief in August of 2002. The IRS made a final determination denying the requested relief in a letter dated April 27, 2006.  [*3] This letter gave Ms. Pollock ninety (90) days in which to file a petition with the United States Tax Court to contest the determination. The defendant did not file a petition in the ninety-day time frame. She cites a decision from the tax court, Billings v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 7 (2006), which came out in July of 2006 and held that the tax court had no jurisdiction over innocent spouse reviews pursuant to § 6015(f). After Ms. Pollock's ninety-day window closed, Congress amended §6015 to specifically grant the tax court jurisdiction over such claims.

Prior to that amendment, however, various federal courts had held that the tax court did not have jurisdiction over 6015(f) petitions. See Comm'r v. Ewing, 439 F.3d 1009, 1013 (9th Cir. 2006)(court held that 6015(e) did not grant jurisdiction over 6015(f) petitions); see also Bartman v. Commissioner, 446 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2006)(same). Ms. Pollock was thus faced with a situation where the IRS told her that she had to seek review of its decision in the tax court, but federal case law stated that the tax court had no jurisdiction over her claim.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.