Henrik Ibsen’s words from An Enemy of the People apply to Lana Joan Davidson, who stars in 144 T. C. 13, filed 4/2/15, with Judge Ruwe finding Ibsen’s words apply to the woman who stands alone.

Lana brought a petition for Section 6015 liability, but she wasn’t petitioning from a SNOD or a NOD. No deficiency or determination sustaining a NITL or NFTL was involved. Lana just wanted innocent spousery.

This is what is called a “stand-alone” Section 6015.

Judge Ruwe explains: “Section 6015(e) allows a spouse who has requested relief to petition the Commissioner’s denial of relief. Such cases are referred to as ‘stand alone’ cases, in that they are independent of any deficiency proceeding.” 144 T. C. 13, at p. 3.

OK, Lana’s in, but now she wants out. And IRS will let her out, even without prejudice (although her time to re-petition is gone).

But can Tax Court echo the immortal words of the St. James Infirmary Blues (“let her go, let her go, God bless her”), without sticking Lana with some kind of decision?

Section 6213, the deficiency definer, when coupled with Section 7459(d), prevents a petitioner from doing a dump-and-run, withdrawing their petition from a SNOD without suffering the consequences of a decision giving IRS whatever it asked for in the SNOD. This prevents a give-and-go delaying tactic.

Here, though, no deficiency in sight, so the Wagner rule, which permits a free bailout from a petition of a NOD sustaining a NFTL or NITL, should apply.

And after a canter through FRCP 41(a), Judge Ruwe lets Lana out. Here, answer was filed, but the parties agree Lana can bail. And there is no issue-preclusion here, either, because the petition here, if dismissed, is not a “prior proceeding” as defined in Section 6015(g)(2).

“Petitioner invoked the Court’s jurisdiction under section 6015(e)(1) to review respondent’s final determination denying her section 6015 relief. That was the only issue in this ‘stand alone’ section 6015 case. Congress has not required the Court to enter a decision upon the dismissal of a case such as this. Dismissal of this case through withdrawal of the petition has the same result as if the case was never brought. This also means that section 6015(g)(2) will not apply in any later case that petitioner may commence as to section 6015 relief. Section 6015(g)(2) is operative only if there is a ‘prior proceeding’. Dismissal of this case pursuant to the principles of FRCP 41(a)(2) will serve to treat this case as never having been a ‘proceeding’.” 144 T. C. 13, at p.10 (Citations and footnote omitted).

Remember, the Section 6015(g)(2) stick-‘em applies where the party sought innocent spousery in the prior proceeding and “meaningfully participated” therein. Section 6015(g)(2) won’t hurt Lana, but as aforesaid, her time to re-petition is gone.

So Tax Court has jurisdiction and, in exercise of its discretion, will dismiss Lana’s petition.

She also stands strongest who stands alone.