                        T.C. Memo. 2006-227



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                 CAROL J. HUNTER, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 20474-05.             Filed October 24, 2006.



          Held: Petition for determination of relief from
     joint and several liability under sec. 6015(f), I.R.C.,
     dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Billings v.
     Commissioner, 127 T.C. 7 (2006), followed.


     Carol J. Hunter, pro se.

     Charles J. Graves, for respondent.



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION


     WHERRY, Judge:   This case is before the Court on

respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.   The

instant proceeding arises from a petition for judicial review
                               - 2 -

filed in response to a determination concerning relief from joint

and several liability under section 6015.1    The issue for

decision is whether the Tax Court has jurisdiction under section

6015(e) to review the Commissioner’s determination that

petitioner is not entitled to relief.

                            Background

     Petitioner was formerly married to William B. Hunter III

(Mr. Hunter).   Petitioner and Mr. Hunter filed joint Forms 1040,

U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 1996, 1997, and 1998.

Each of these returns reflected a balance due and was not

accompanied by full payment.

     In July of 2003, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) received

from petitioner a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief.

Petitioner sought relief for underpayments of tax for, inter

alia, 1996 through 1998 under section 6015(f).     On July 28, 2005,

the IRS issued to petitioner a notice of determination denying

her request for section 6015 relief.     Petitioner filed a

petition, and subsequent amended petition, with this Court

contesting the adverse determination.     At the time these

documents were filed, petitioner resided in New Mexico.       The case

is presently calendared for trial at the session of the Court

commencing on November 27, 2006, in Albuquerque, New Mexico.



     1
       Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
                               - 3 -

     After the pleadings were closed, two Courts of Appeals,

those for the Eighth and Ninth Circuits, ruled that the Tax Court

lacked jurisdiction to consider denials of relief under section

6015(f) in proceedings where no deficiency had been asserted.

See Bartman v. Commissioner, 446 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2006), affg.

in part and vacating in part T.C. Memo. 2004-93; Commissioner v.

Ewing, 439 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2006), revg. 118 T.C. 494 (2002),

vacating 122 T.C. 32 (2004).   This Court subsequently reached the

same conclusion in Billings v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 7 (2006).

     Given these developments, respondent on September 14, 2006,

filed the above-referenced motion to dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction.   Respondent noted specifically that no deficiencies

have been asserted against petitioner or Mr. Hunter.   The Court

issued an order directing petitioner to file any response to

respondent’s motion, and petitioner so responded on October 10,

2006.   Petitioner briefly recited the substance of her position

as follows:   “Although I am objecting because I think my case

should be heard, in principle I agree with the ruling.   A tax

court determining equitable spousal relief appears to be a

conflict of interest.   It would be more equitable to have an

independent, objective party make this determination.”

                            Discussion

     The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may

exercise only the power conferred by statute.   E.g., Raymond v.
                               - 4 -

Commissioner, 119 T.C. 191, 193 (2002); Naftel v. Commissioner,

85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); see also sec. 7442.   It likewise is well

recognized, as a corollary to the foregoing principle, that the

Court lacks equitable powers to expand its statutorily prescribed

jurisdiction.   E.g., Commissioner v. McCoy, 484 U.S. 3, 7 (1987);

Bokum v. Commissioner, 992 F.2d 1136, 1140 (11th Cir. 1993),

affg. T.C. Memo. 1990-21; Woods v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 776, 785

(1989).   Moreover, the existence of jurisdiction in a particular

case is fundamental and may be raised at any point in the

proceeding, either by a party or by the Court sua sponte.    E.g.,

Smith v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 36, 40 (2005); Raymond v.

Commissioner, supra at 193; Naftel v. Commissioner, supra at 530.

     For the reasons set forth in Billings v. Commissioner,

supra, the Court has concluded that our jurisdiction under the

laws governing joint and several liability does not extend to

review of the Commissioner’s denials of requests for relief

pursuant to section 6015(f) where no deficiency has been

asserted.   Nor can equitable or policy concerns expand this

jurisdiction in disregard of the express provisions of the

statute enacted by Congress.   Accordingly, we are constrained to

grant respondent’s motion and to dismiss this case for lack of

jurisdiction.
                            - 5 -

To reflect the foregoing,


                                         An order of dismissal for

                                    lack of jurisdiction will be

                                    entered.
