§1203

Paragraph (7) was added to section 6015 by Taxpayer First Act § 1203, 133 Stat. at 988, and applies to petitions for review of determinations made under section 6015 filed on or after July 1, 2019, and requests pending with the Internal Revenue Service on or after July 1, 2019. See Sutherland v. Commissioner, 155 T.C. 95, 104 (2020). Section 6015(e)(7) does not apply because respondent did not issue a notice of determination.

116-25, § 1203, 133 Stat. 981, 988 (2019), this new provision applies only to petitions filed in this Court on or after July 1, 2019, and thus does not govern this case (which was commenced in March 2017), see Sutherland v.

1203(b), 133 Stat. at 988 (2019). Because Ms. Gans filed her petition before July 1, 2019, sec. 6015(e)(7) does not apply in this case.

1203, 133 Stat. at 988 (2019). This new provision applies only to petitions filed in this Court after July 1, 2019, and thus does not govern our case, which was commenced in December 2018.

1203(b), 133 Stat. at 988 (2019). Because petitioner filed her petition before July 1, 2019, sec. 6015(e)(7) does not apply to this case.

We need not decide whether the burden of proof shifts in the instant case because we decide the issues by a preponderance of the evidence.

4 If section 6015(e)(7) applies, an issue we need not decide, our scope of review would be limited to “(A) the administrative record established at the time of the determination, and (B) any additional newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence.” The parties stipulated the administrative record, and the trial testimony 4 (2009), superseded in part

203, 210 (2009), superseded in part by statute, Taxpayer First Act § 1203, 133 Stat. at 988. Under the law applicable to this case, we will also employ a de novo scope of review.4 The taxpayer requesting relief under section 6015 generally bears the burden of proving that he or she is entitled to relief. See Rule 142(a); Porter, 132 T.C. at 210. III. Scope of section 6015(e)(1)(A) jurisdiction Petitioner also contends that because she did not consent to the filing of joint returns on her behalf

1203, 133 Stat. at 988 (2019), added I.R.C. sec. 6015(e)(7) and (f)(2). I.R.C. sec. 6015(e)(7) limits this Court's review ofthe determination in cases such as this to "(A) the administrative record established at the time ofthe determination, and (B) any newly discovered or pre- viously unavailable evidence." Congress specified that the amend- ments effected by Act sec. 1203(b) "shall apply to petitions or re- quests filed or pending on or after the date ofthe enactment ofthis Act," July 1, 2019

s It is not clear that Congress intended to create the possibility of this result. Section 6015(e)(7) was added by the Taxpayer First Act as part of Title I, which bears the heading “Putting Taxpayers First.” Taxpayer First Act, Pub. L. No. 116-25, § 1203, 133 Stat. 981, 988 (2019).2 This provision was meant to resolve conflicting decisions amongst courts in innocent spouse cases, with some courts holding that an abuse of discretion standard applied while other courts held that the more taxpayer

eview We apply a de novo standard of review to any determination made by the Commissioner under section 6015. § 6015(e)(7); see Porter v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. 203, 210 (2009), superseded in part by statute, Taxpayer First Act, Pub. L. No. 116-25, § 1203, 133 Stat. 981, 988 (2019). Our scope of review is limited to the administrative record established at the time of the Commissioner’s determination and any newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence. § 6015(e)(7). The Court will consid

116-25, § 1203(b), 133 Stat. 981, 988 (2019) (“The amendments made by this section shall apply to petitions or requests filed or pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.”); Consolidated Appropria- tions Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, div. Q, § 422(b), 129 Stat. 2242, 3123 (2015) (“The amendments made by this section shall apply to cases

981, 988 (2019). While a requesting spouse generally bears the burden of proving she is entitled to relief, it is an open question whether the nonrequesting spouse now bears the burden of proof when the Commissioner and the requesting spouse are aligned on the decision to grant relief. See Kraszewska v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 20

9, 127–28, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) is a joint congressional committee authorized today under section 8001. JCT’s membership and legislative duties and powers, which are largely unchanged since 1926, are further prescribed in sections 8002 through 8005 and sections 8021 through 8023. 15 Creation Act of 2004,” JCX-69-0

tice 2020-23, 2020-18 I.R.B. 742. 10 [*10] II. Preliminary Matters A. Evidentiary Considerations First, the scope of review in the present matter is limited. Subsection (e)(7) was added to section 6015 by the Taxpayer First Act, Pub. L. No. 116-25, § 1203, 133 Stat. 981, 988 (2019). Section 6015(e)(7) provides that the scope of our review is limited to the “administrative record established at the time of the determination, and . . . any additional newly discovered or previously unavailable evid

(f). See § 6015(e)(1)(A). We apply a de novo standard of review to any determination made by the Commissioner under section 6015. § 6015(e)(7); see Porter v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. 203, 210 (2009), superseded in part by statute, Taxpayer First Act § 1203, 133 Stat. at 988. Our scope of review, however, is limited to the administrative record established at the time of the Commissioner’s determination and any newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence. § 6015(e)(7).5 The taxpayer reques

14 Congress eventually settled the issue when it decided that we should review the IRS de novo based upon the administrative record and “any additional newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence.” Taxpayer First Act § 1203(a)(1), 133 Stat.

ction 6015. See Porter v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. 203, 210 (2009). Although Congress recently added section 6015(e)(7) to clarify the scope and standard of our review in stand- alone innocent spouse cases, see Taxpayer First Act, Pub. L. No. 116-25, sec. 1203, 133 Stat. at 988 (2019), this new provision applies only to petitions filed in - 11 - this Court on or after July 1, 2019, and thus does not govern this case, which was commenced in March 2019, see Sutherland v. Commissioner, 155 T.C. 95, 1

bergs signed a Form 872-I, their consent was not revocable. RA Knighton called her group manager (whose name is not in the record) to discuss Goldberg's request to revoke the consent and also 46Goldberg's reference to filing a "1203" appears to mean sec. 1203 ofthe Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105- 206, 112 Stat. at 720. This section ofthe Act requires the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to terminate IRS employees for certain types ofmisconduct. kl.

Specifically, paragraph (7) provides that "[a]ny review ofa determination made under this section [sec.

1203(b), 133 Stat. at 988 (2019). Because the trial evidence was merely cumulative ofwhat was already included in the administrative record, section 6015(e)(7) does not affect the outcome ofthis case. As a result, we have not addressed the effect ofsection 6015(e)(7). 5Sec. 6013(a). - 9 - [*9] liability for that year.6 In certain circumstance

1203(b), 133 Stat. at 988 (2019). Because the trial evidence was merely cumulative ofwhat was already included in the administrative record and previously unavailable evidence ofpetitioner's current financial status, sec. 6015(e)(7) does not affect the outcome ofthis case. As a result, the Court has not addressed the effect ofsec. 6015(e)(7).

within the meaning of RRA 1998 section 1203(b)(9), and he has not called to our attention any final administrative or judicial determination that he has committed such an act .

section 1203(a) (1988), provides that Unless the Secretary of the Treasury finds that the collection of a tax is in jeopardy, in carrying out the provisions of section 4975 of Title 26 (relating to tax on prohibited transactions) the Secretary of the Treasury shall, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (h) of such section, notify the Sec