« Dexter: Shock, Awe, & Expropriation: The Act of State Doctrine and Loss Deductions Under § 165 | Main | Brunner & Pech: Optimum Taxation of Inheritances »
May 16, 2008
Tax Court Refuses to Reconsider § 6015(f) Ruling in Ewing
A fractured Tax Court yesterday refused to reconsider its holding in Ewing v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 32 (2004), holding that the determination of whether a taxpayer is entitled to innocent spouse relief under § 6015(f) is made in a trial de novo that may include evidence introduced at trial that was not included in the administrative record. Porter v. Commissioner, 130 T.C. No. 10 (5/15/08).
- The majority opinion was written by Judge Haines and joined by Judges Colvin, Cohen, Swift, Wells, Foley, Vasquez, Gale, Thornton, Marvel, Goeke, and Wherry
- Judge Vasquez concurred in an opinion joined by Judges Swift and Wells
- Judge Thornton concurred in an opinion joined by Judges Colvin, Swift, Wells, Gale, and Marvel
- Judge Goeke concurred in an opinion joined by Judges Colvin, Swift, Foley, Marvel, Wherry, and Kroupa
- Judge Wherry concurred in an opinion joined by Judges Colvin, Swift, Foley, Gale, Marvel, Goeke, and Kroupa
- Judges Halpern and Holmes dissented
For those of you scoring at home, the number of opinions joined by the Judges were:
- Cohen, Haines, Halpern, Holmes, Thornton
- Vasquez, Wherry
- Foley, Gale, Wells
- Colvin, Goeke, Marvel
- Swift
May 16, 2008 in New Cases | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4eab53ef00e55229b69b8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tax Court Refuses to Reconsider § 6015(f) Ruling in Ewing:
Comments
The math doesn't add up:
Judge Haines authored the majority opinion and "joined" no other opinion. I guess you are counting authoring an opinion as equaling joining an opinion. (The same can be said for Judges Halpern and Holmes who dissented, wrote a joint dissent, and joined no other opinion.)
Judge Thornton authored a concurring opinion and joined the majority opinion. That equals "2" (not 1 as listed).
Judge Wherry authored a concurring opinion and joined the majority opinion and Judge Goeke's concurring opinion. That equals "3" (not 2 as listed).
Judge Goeke authored a concurring opinion and joined the majority opinion and Judge Wherry's concurring opinion. That equals "3" (not 4 as listed).
And you forgot to include Judge Kroupa on the list. She joined 2 concurring opinions (Judge Wherry's and Judge Goeke's).
-ATP
Posted by: Adjunct Law Prof. | May 16, 2008 5:12:46 PM
