And Innocent Spousery Loses

Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”) Buch says Congress meant pore l’il ol’ Tax Court to be limited when innocent spousery is on the table. Paul Andrew Frutiger, 162 T. C. 5, filed 3/11/24, wants innocent spousery. He and spouse got separate NODs; she petitioned hers timely, he was two (count ’em, two) days late.

Paul gets fire support from The Center for Taxpayers Rights, but that doesn’t help. While the veterans’ benefit cases the amicus cite do show Congress cared about giving veterans a break (mirabile dictù), there are several deadlines in 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(a)(3), and Congress wasn’t talking jurisdiction to Judge Ingenuity Buch’s satisfaction anywhere.

But Section 6015(e)(1)(A) is a specific grant of jurisdiction to Tax Court.

“It provides that a ‘[taxpayer] may petition the Tax Court (and the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction) to determine the appropriate relief . . . if such petition is filed . . . not later than the close of the 90th day after the date described in clause (i)(I).’ I.R.C. § 6015(e)(1)(A) (emphasis added). Section 6015(e)(1)(A) expressly provides ‘jurisdiction’ with respect to the Tax Court’s power to hear innocent spouse cases. And while this alone is not enough, see Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner, 142 S. Ct. 1493, there is a clear link between the parenthetical that contains the jurisdictional text and the 90-day filing deadline; the filing deadline reads as a prerequisite to the Tax Court’s jurisdiction.” 162 T. C. 5, at p. 7. (Emphasis by the Court).

And though parentheticals are afterthoughts or asides, the parenthetical in Section 6015(e)(1)(A) is the real deal.

“In this instance, we do not place any interpretive weight of Congress’s placing the jurisdictional grant in a parenthetical. In Boechler, the Supreme Court noted that a parenthetical ‘is typically used to convey an ‘aside’ or ‘afterthought.’” Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner, 142 S. Ct. at 1498 (citing Bryan A. Garner, Modern English Usage 1020 (4th ed. 2016)). But in the immediately subsequent paragraph, the Supreme Court cited the parenthetical of section 6015(e)(1)(A) for its relative clarity. Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner, 142 S. Ct. at 1498–99. 162 T. C. 5, at p. 8, footnote 3.

Yeah, maybe it is dicta, but lower courts don’t blow off the Supremes’ dicta, because it might just could maybe so let the peasants know what their High Mightinesses are thinking.

Yes, innocent spouses are often the victims of abuse, and Congress wants to protect them.

“But just because section 6015 was enacted under taxpayer-favorable legislation does not mean that Congress intended for the filing deadline of section 6015(e)(1)(A) to be nonjurisdictional. As we have stated, section 6015 contains both equitable and nonequitable components. It being enacted under taxpayer-favorable legislation does not make every part of it equitable. Concluding that the filing deadline of section 6015(e)(1)(A) is nonjurisdictional because it was enacted under RRA Title III would require us to go against the clear statutory text and make statutory context the deciding factor. We decline to do so. ” 162 T. C. 5, at p. 11.

RRA was the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, the wonderful enactment that gave us the judicially-hobbled Section 6751(b) Boss Hoss. Taishoff says Congress giveth and the courts taketh away.

A brief docket search looks like Paul is Golsenized to 9 Cir, no immoderate pals of the “small court.” Maybe an appeal is coming from the amicus. I’ve reached out to Mandi L. Matlock, Esq., Paul’s trusty attorney, for comment, and to receive a Taishoff “Good Try.”