                          T.C. Memo. 2006-244



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                KAYE C. SCHLACHTER, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 245-05.                   Filed November 9, 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.


     Kaye C. Schlachter, 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 Michael J. Schlachter

(Mr. Schlachter).   Petitioner and Mr. Schlachter filed a joint

Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 1997.      A joint

Form 1040 was also filed for petitioner and Mr. Schlachter for

1998, although petitioner has at various junctures alleged that

she did not have knowledge of or sign the 1998 return.    Each of

these returns reflected a balance due and was not accompanied by

full payment.

     In October of 2002, 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, 1997 and 1998 under section 6015(f).   On October 7,

2004, the IRS issued to petitioner a notice of determination

denying her request for section 6015 relief.   Petitioner filed a

petition with this Court contesting the adverse determination.

At the time these documents were filed, petitioner resided in



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

Indiana.   The case is presently calendared for trial at the

session of the Court commencing on November 27, 2006, in

Albuquerque, New Mexico.

     After the pleadings were submitted, 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 21, 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. Schlachter.     The

Court issued an order directing petitioner to file any response

to respondent’s motion, and petitioner so responded on

October 25, 2006.   Petitioner opens her response with the

statement:   “Petitioner moves that this case be dismissed for

lack of jurisdiction upon the ground that the Tax Court lacks

jurisdiction under I.R.C. 6015(e) and that the petitioner was not

entitled to relief under section 6015(f).”   However, after a

brief recitation of facts, petitioner also states:   “Petitioner
                                - 4 -

is asking this court to please, with due respect, to give her

some equitable relief.”

                              Discussion

     The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may

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

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 generally 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, 784-785 (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
                                 - 5 -

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.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                              An order of dismissal for

                                         lack of jurisdiction will be

                                         entered.
