                        T.C. Memo. 2006-210



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



               KATHLYN S. STARBUCK, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 24116-04.                Filed September 27, 2006.



     Robert J. Gumser, for petitioner.

     Erin K. Huss, for respondent.



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION


     KROUPA, Judge:   Respondent determined that petitioner is not

entitled to relief from joint and several liability under section

60151 with respect to unpaid taxes reported on joint returns

petitioner and her former spouse filed for 1998 and 1999 (the

years at issue).   We have concluded that we lack jurisdiction to

review the Commissioner’s denial of relief under section 6015(f)

     1
      All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the years at issue, unless otherwise indicated.
                                -2-

where no deficiency has been asserted, and we shall therefore

dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction on our own motion.

                            Background

     Some of the facts have been stipulated.   The stipulation of

facts and the accompanying exhibits are incorporated by this

reference.   Petitioner resided in San Diego County, California,

at the time she filed the petition.

     Petitioner and her former spouse married in February 1988,

separated in January 2000, and divorced in April 2002. Respondent

did not determine a deficiency in this case.   The taxes at issue

are the taxes for 1998 and 1999 that petitioner and her former

spouse reported were due on their joint returns but did not pay.

     Petitioner filed a request for relief from her tax

liabilities for the years at issue on Form 8857, Request for

Innocent Spouse Relief, with respondent in July 2003.    Respondent

determined that petitioner was not entitled to relief for the

years at issue.   Petitioner timely filed a petition with this

Court.

                            Discussion

     After the trial, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit, the court to which this case is appealable, held that we

do not have jurisdiction to consider the Commissioner’s denials

of requests for relief under section 6015(f) where no deficiency

has been asserted.   Commissioner v. Ewing, 439 F.3d 1009 (9th

Cir. 2006), revg. 118 T.C. 494 (2002), vacating 122 T.C. 32

(2004).   We have since come to the same conclusion.    Billings v.
                                 -3-

Commissioner, 127 T.C. ____ (2006).     After our Opinion was filed

in Billings, we issued an order directing the parties to show

cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction.   Respondent filed a response to the Court’s order

agreeing that we lack jurisdiction.     Petitioner filed a response

to the Court’s order objecting to the dismissal of this case.

     The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may

exercise that jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by

Congress.   Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985).

Whether this Court has jurisdiction is fundamental, and we may

question our jurisdiction at any time.      Smith v. Commissioner,

124 T.C. 36, 40 (2005) (citing Raymond v. Commissioner, 119 T.C.

191, 193 (2002), Neely v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 287, 290 (2000),

and Romann v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 273, 280 (1998)); Naftel v.

Commissioner, supra at 530.   As we have concluded that we do not

have jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s denials of

requests for relief under section 6015(f) where no deficiency has

been asserted, we shall dismiss this case for lack of

jurisdiction.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                           An order of dismissal for
                                       lack of jurisdiction will be

                                       entered.
