Opinion
22497-19
09-01-2021
Mojdeh Salehomoum, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
ORDER
Christian N. Weiler, Judge
This case is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment, filed pursuant to Rule 121. Petitioner filed the petition on December 23, 2019, challenging respondent's denial of relief from joint and several liability under section 6015(f) for tax years 2009, 2012, and 2013. Respondent filed the answer to the petition on February 12, 2020, and then filed a motion for summary judgment on February 22, 2021. This Court ordered petitioner to file a response to respondent's motion for summary judgment and petitioner filed her response on March 25, 2021.
All Rules referenced herein are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
All section references herein are the to Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) in effect during the relevant tax periods.
Background
Petitioner and Mr. Omid Bahrami (Mr. Bahrami) participated in a religious ceremony in California in 1997. The couple did not obtain a marriage license following the religious ceremony, but petitioner believed, until early 2016, that they were legally married. Accordingly, petitioner and Mr. Bahrami jointly filed Forms 1040, Federal personal income tax returns, for tax years 2009, 2012, and 2013, with each tax return reflecting taxes due.
On April 13, 2017, after the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa (Superior Court) held that petitioner's marriage to Mr. Bahrami was not valid under California law, petitioner filed a Request for Innocent Spouse Relief (Form 8857) with respondent, seeking relief from joint and several liability for the couple's unpaid tax liabilities under section 6015(f). On September 19, 2019, respondent issued a notice of determination granting petitioner partial relief under section 6015(f) while denying relief for the unpaid taxes due in the amounts relating to petitioner's own income and deductions for the tax years at issue. In her response to respondent's motion for summary judgment, petitioner indicates that she has filed amended tax returns, reflecting her single status.
Discussion
A. Summary Judgment
The purpose of summary judgment is to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). The court may grant summary judgment when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd, 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). In deciding whether to grant summary judgment, we draw factual inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, in this instance the petitioner. Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. at 520.
B. Joint Return Requirement
Married taxpayers may elect to file a joint Federal income tax return. Sec. 6013(a). After making the election, each spouse becomes jointly and severally liable for the entire tax due for that taxable year. Sec. 6013(d)(3); Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 282 (2000). However, where, as here, a taxpayer seeks equitable relief under section 6015(f), she may be excused from joint and several liability for the joint tax due upon a showing that it is inequitable to hold her liable. See Pullins v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 432, 438 (2011). As a prerequisite to such relief, we have held that the filing of a joint tax return is required for section 6015 relief. See, e.g., Raymond v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 191, 194 (2002); James v. Commissioner, T. C. Memo. 2021-7, at *6; Abdelhadi v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2018-183, at *5. A joint return is one made by two spouses, ordinarily determined as of the close of the year. See sec. 6013(a), (d)(1)(A); see also Abdelhadi v. Commissioner, at *5; Gaitan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-3, 2012 WL 10801, at *6 ("A joint return may be filed only by a couple that was married as of the last day of the tax year.").
Section 6015(e)(1)(A) grants this Court jurisdiction "to determine the appropriate relief available to the individual under * * * [section 6015]" in a so-called stand-alone proceeding. Our jurisdiction in a stand-alone proceeding is limited to the review of "the Commissioner's denial of the specific relief contemplated under section 6015." Block v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 62, 65 (2003). We have also held that the filing of a joint return is a condition for relief under section 6015 but not for our review of the denial of the claim for relief. Gormeley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-252.
C. Analysis
Citing to Abdelhadi v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2018-183 and James v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2021-7 in support of his motion for summary judgment, respondent argues that petitioner was not entitled to file jointly and since section 6015 requires a joint return, petitioner is not eligible for relief under section 6015(f). Respondent also argues that this Court's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing of petitioner's denial of relief from joint and several liability under Section 6015.
In her response, petitioner argues that section 6015 does not require a valid joint return and argues that this Court's prior decisions in Christensen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-299, aff d Christensen v. C.I.R., 523 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2008); and Raymond v. Commissioner, 19 T.C. 191 (2002) are distinguishable from the present matter. Petitioner goes on to explain how the holdings in Abdelhadi v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2018-183 and James v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2021-7 are erroneous or contrary to a plain reading of Section 6015. However, petitioner - citing to Revenue Ruling 76-255 - also ackowledges she has filed amended tax returns with the IRS, reflecting a tax filing status of "single." Finally, petitioner argues that if the Court is unable to rule on the merits of her claim, it should find that "[respondent's] assessment was invalid ab initio and petitioner's [actual] tax liability is reflected in the amended returns that petitioner has filed and respondent has not challenged."
We are not convinced by respondent's arguments raised in his summary judgment. The fact pattern in the present matter is distinguishable from those circumstances and arguments previously considered by this Court in both Christensen v. Commissioner and Raymond v. Commissioner.
Although the Court of Appeals in the Christensen v. Commissioner decision considered the statutory language of Section 6015 and legislative history to affirm this Court's decision, the Appellate Court only considered the issue in the context of a taxpayer filing a separate (or individual) tax return and then seeking innocent spouse relief. 523 F.3d at 961-963.
Petitioner makes a compelling argument here that there is no requirement under section 6015 that the joint return made be a valid tax return. This material distinction alters the Court's analysis. In the Court's view, and solely for purposes of summary adjudication of this matter, petitioner's arguments successfully distinguish the issues in this case from those previously examined in our prior decisions.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that respondent's motion for summary judgment, filed on February 22, 2021, is denied. It is further
ORDERED that on or before September 30, 2021, the parties shall file a joint status report (or if a joint report is not expedient, then separate reports) setting forth the issues remaining for trial and recommending a schedule for further proceedings in this case.