                   T.C. Summary Opinion 2010-52



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



            CYNTHINIE JOANE MCCASLAND, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 9841-09S.             Filed April 21, 2010.



     Frances H. Thompson and Jessica Rammelsberg (student), for

petitioner.

     Inga C. Plucinski, for respondent.



     GERBER, Judge:   This case was heard pursuant to the

provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect
                                - 2 -

when the petition was filed.1   Pursuant to section 7463(b), the

decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and

this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other

case.    The case was submitted fully stipulated under Rule 122.

Petitioner resided in Utah at the time her petition was filed.

     Respondent denied petitioner’s request for relief under

section 6015(f).    The sole issue for our consideration is whether

petitioner’s request for relief under section 6015(f) is time-

barred because it was filed more than 2 years (approximately

4½ years) after respondent mailed petitioner a notice of

determination to proceed with collection under section 6330.

     Respondent concedes that petitioner otherwise meets the

qualifications for relief from joint and several liability under

section 6015(f).    The sole reason for respondent’s denial of

relief is that petitioner’s request for relief was not timely--

within 2 years from the time of the notification.    Respondent

understands that this Court’s precedent in Lantz v. Commissioner,

132 T.C. __ (2009), a Court-reviewed opinion, is on point and

would provide petitioner with the opportunity to




     1
      Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                                 - 3 -

seek relief even though her request for relief was without the 2-

year period.   Respondent, however, notes that Lantz is on appeal

and that he disagrees with this Court’s holding in that case.2

     In Lantz v. Commissioner, supra, this Court held invalid the

Secretary’s regulation limiting the right to seek relief under

section 6015(f) to 2 years.   The holding of that case did not

establish any time within which a request for relief would be

considered reasonable and/or timely.     Respondent concedes that

the only reason for denial was that petitioner’s request exceeded

2 years.   Respondent does not argue that the amount of time by

which petitioner’s request exceeded 2 years is a reason for

denial of equitable relief under section 6015(f).      Accordingly,

there is no reason for this Court to further analyze or decide

whether an approximately 4½-year period is reasonable and/or

timely.

     In view of the foregoing,


                                           Decision will be entered

                                     for petitioner.




     2
      Respondent sought to have the small tax case designation
removed from this case in an attempt to be able to appeal any
adverse decision for the purpose of overturning our holding in
Lantz v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. __ (2009). Respondent’s motion
was denied for reasons stated in the record.
