                         T.C. Memo. 2007-41



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                     DEBRA BOCK, Petitioner v.
           COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 7081-06.                  Filed February 21, 2007.



     Bernard S. Mark and Richard S. Kestenbaum, for petitioner.

     Theresa G. McQueeney, for respondent.



                         MEMORANDUM OPINION


     CHIECHI, Judge:    This case is before the Court on respon-

dent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (respondent’s

motion).   We shall grant respondent’s motion.

                             Background

     The parties agree and/or do not dispute the following.

     Petitioner resided in Franklin Square, New York, at the time

she filed the petition in this case.
                                - 2 -

     Petitioner and her spouse jointly filed a Federal income tax

return (return) for each of their taxable years 1997 (1997

return), 2000 (2000 return), and 2003 (2003 return).   Each of

those returns showed tax due.   Petitioner and her spouse did not

pay the tax due shown in the 1997 return, the 2000 return, or the

2003 return.

     Respondent has not asserted a deficiency for any of peti-

tioner’s taxable years 1997, 2000, and 2003.

     On April 4, 2005, respondent received from petitioner Form

8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief (and Separation of

Liability and Equitable Relief), in which she requested relief

under section 6015.1

     On January 19, 2006, respondent issued to petitioner a

notice of determination in which respondent denied her relief

under section 6015 with respect to her taxable years 1997, 2000,

and 2003.   Petitioner timely filed a petition in the Court with

respect to that notice.

     On January 10, 2007, the Court issued an Order (Court’s

January 10, 2007 Order), in which the Court directed each party

to file a response to that Order addressing the Court’s jurisdic-

tion over the instant case in light of the amendment to section

6015(e)(1) made by the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006



     1
      All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect at all relevant times.
                                - 3 -

(Act).   On February 1, 2007, respondent filed a response to the

Court’s January 10, 2007 Order (respondent’s response), and on

February 2, 2007, petitioner filed a response to that Order

(petitioner’s response).

                            Discussion

     The Act amended section 6015(e)(1) to provide that the Court

may review the denial of relief under section 6015 by the Commis-

sioner of Internal Revenue (Commissioner) in any case where an

individual requested relief under section 6015(f).   Tax Relief

and Health Care Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-432, div. C, sec.

408(a), 120 Stat. 2922, 3061.   That amendment applies “with

respect to liability for taxes arising or remaining unpaid on or

after the date of the enactment of this Act.”   Id. at 3062.   The

date of the enactment of the Act was December 20, 2006.

     In respondent’s response, respondent represents:

     On December 21, 2005, petitioner fully paid the liabil-
     ities for taxable years 1997, 2000 and 2003. * * *

          * * * Thus, the liabilities for taxable years
     1997, 2000 and 2003 did not remain unpaid as of the
     date of enactment. As a result, the amendments to
     I.R.C. § 6015(e) made by the Act * * * do not apply to
     those years. Because the amendments do not apply to
     taxable years 1997, 2000 and 2003, I.R.C. § 6015(e) as
     it existed before the amendments and the law concerning
     that statute apply to those years.

         *      *       *        *       *       *        *

          * * * As previously stated, in Billings v. Commis-
     sioner, 127 T.C. 7 (2006), this Court held that it
     lacked jurisdiction, under former I.R.C. § 6015(e), to
     review respondent’s determination denying relief under
                               - 4 -

     I.R.C. § 6015(f) when respondent has not determined a
     deficiency. * * *

     In petitioner’s response, petitioner

     concedes that no tax liability remains unpaid as of
     December 20, 2006. Accordingly, Petitioner concedes
     that she is not seeking to invoke this Court’s juris-
     diction under §6015(e)(1) as amended by the Tax Relief
     and Health Care Act of 2006. She is seeking jurisdic-
     tions [sic] under [section] 6015(e)(1) prior to amend-
     ment.

     In petitioner’s response, petitioner points out that the

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where an

appeal in the instant case would normally lie, has not addressed

the issue of whether this Court has jurisdiction under section

6015(e)(1) prior to its amendment by the Act where a deficiency

has not been asserted.   Petitioner seems to suggest in peti-

tioner’s response that, because the United States Court of

Appeals for the Second Circuit has not addressed that issue, the

Court should revisit and overrule its holding in Billings v.

Commissioner, 127 T.C. 7 (2006).

     We held in Billings v. Commissioner, supra, that we lack

jurisdiction under section 6015(e)(1) prior to its amendment by

the Act to review a determination by the Commissioner denying

relief under section 6015(f) where a deficiency has not been

asserted.   The Court is bound by the holding in Billings and

declines any invitation by petitioner to revisit and overrule

that holding.
                                 - 5 -

     We conclude that we do not have jurisdiction over the

instant case.   That is because the parties agree that the respec-

tive liabilities for tax for the taxable years 1997, 2000, and

2003 did not remain unpaid as of December 20, 2006, the date of

the enactment of the Act.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                         An order granting respondent’s

                                 motion to dismiss for lack of

                                 jurisdiction will be entered.
