                        T.C. Memo. 2011-218



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



              CHRISTOPHER AMES BEACH, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 4981-10.               Filed September 7, 2011.



     Christopher Ames Beach, pro se.

     Meredith L. Stuart and Audrey M. Morris, for respondent.



             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     KROUPA, Judge:   This case arises from a stand-alone petition

for relief from joint and several liability under section 60151

and relates to a deficiency notice issued by respondent to



     1
      All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court
Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise indicated.
                               - 2 -

petitioner and his former wife for 2004.    The deficiency arose

from a claimed casualty loss and expenses reported on Schedule E,

Supplemental Income and Loss, attributable solely to separate

property of petitioner, specifically two rental properties.      The

issue for decision is whether petitioner is barred from obtaining

any relief from joint and several liability under section

6015(g)(2).   We hold he is barred from obtaining relief from

joint and several liability.

                         FINDINGS OF FACT

     Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.      We

incorporate the stipulation of facts and the accompanying

exhibits by this reference.

     Petitioner and his former wife, Leslie A. Beach (Mrs.

Beach), were married in 1997 and were divorced in 2005.    They

filed a joint return for 2004 although they were separated at the

time of filing.   That return was later examined and a deficiency

notice was issued.   Petitioner filed a petition with this Court

at docket No. 27187-07S in response to the deficiency notice.

Mrs. Beach was not a party to the deficiency case.

     During that litigation, Appeals Officer Janosek (AO Janosek)

met solely with petitioner regarding possible resolution of the

deficiency case for 2004, as the examination related to

petitioner’s separately owned rental properties.    AO Janosek
                                 - 3 -

accepted the documentation petitioner provided substantiating in

part amounts claimed for 2004.

       AO Janosek mailed a decision document to petitioner for

docket No. 27187-07S conceding a part of the deficiency but

sustaining disallowance of a number of the Schedule E expenses

and the casualty loss for lack of substantiation.     The decision

document reflected a proposal for petitioner to stipulate a

$2,539 deficiency and a $508 accuracy-related penalty.

Petitioner agreed with AO Janosek’s proposal and signed the

decision document at docket No. 27187-07S, returning it to AO

Janosek.    The decision document at docket No. 27187-07S was

entered by the Court on August 21, 2008.

       Mrs. Beach filed a request for innocent spouse relief in May

2008, approximately three months before the decision was entered.

The relief request was also assigned to AO Janosek, who sent a

letter to petitioner informing him that Mrs. Beach was seeking

innocent spouse relief.    Petitioner contested Mrs. Beach’s

request for relief.    Petitioner again met with AO Janosek to

discuss Mrs. Beach’s relief request.     AO Janosek determined,

after meeting with Mrs. Beach and petitioner, that Mrs. Beach

qualified for innocent spouse relief under section 6015(b) and

(c).

       Petitioner attempted to contest again that Mrs. Beach

qualified by filing his own request for innocent spouse relief.
                               - 4 -

He submitted his own questionnaire as a requesting spouse for

2004.   Mrs. Beach submitted a questionnaire for a nonrequesting

spouse regarding petitioner’s request asserting that the

deficiency was entirely attributable to petitioner’s separate

property.   Respondent issued a Final Appeals Determination letter

to petitioner denying his request for innocent spouse relief for

2004.

     Petitioner filed a petition disputing the Appeals

determination that he did not qualify for innocent spouse relief

for 2004 under section 6015(b), (c) or (f).

                               OPINION

     Petitioner seeks to be relieved from joint and several

liability for 2004.   The deficiency petitioner seeks to avoid

arises from disallowed Schedule E expenses/deductions and a

casualty loss reported on Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, from

rental properties that were petitioner’s separate properties.

     Respondent argues that res judicata bars petitioner’s claim

for relief.   Res judicata requires that when a court of competent

jurisdiction enters a final judgment on the merits of a cause of

action, the parties to the action are bound by that decision as

to all matters that were or could have been litigated and decided

in the proceedings.   Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591 (1948).

The doctrine promotes judicial economy by precluding repetitious

lawsuits.   Gustafson v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 85, 91 (1991).
                                - 5 -

Federal income taxes are determined annually with each year a

separate cause of action.    Res judicata is applied to bar

subsequent proceedings involving the same tax year.      Commissioner

v. Sunnen, supra at 597-598.

     Res judicata would generally bar a party to a prior

proceeding for the same tax year from seeking relief from joint

and several liability regardless of whether the claim had been

raised in the prior proceeding.    Vetrano v. Commissioner, 116

T.C. 272, 280 (2001).    Petitioner now brings this action to seek

relief under section 6015 for 2004 after resolving the deficiency

action for 2004.    Accordingly, petitioner’s claim for relief

under section 6015 would be barred by the common law doctrine of

res judicata.

     The common law doctrine of res judicata, however, is limited

by section 6015(g)(2).    Res judicata bars a taxpayer from

requesting relief from joint and several liability only if (1)

such relief was an issue in the prior proceeding, or (2) the

Court decides that the taxpayer participated meaningfully in the

prior proceeding.    Sec. 6015(g)(2); see Deihl v. Commissioner,

134 T.C. 156, 161 (2010); Vetrano v. Commissioner, supra at 278;

sec. 1.6015-1(e), Income Tax Regs.      Put more simply, a taxpayer

that participated meaningfully in a prior proceeding is barred

from electing relief under section 6015 for the same taxable year

after the decision of the Court has become final.     See Vetrano v.
                               - 6 -

Commissioner, supra at 278.   Accordingly, petitioner will be

barred from electing relief under section 6015 if he participated

meaningfully in the prior proceeding.   We now turn our attention

to this issue.

     Petitioner bears the burden of proving that he did not

participate meaningfully in the prior proceeding.   See Deihl v.

Commissioner, supra at 162.   Petitioner failed to present any

legal arguments or briefs to prove by a preponderance of the

evidence that he did not participate meaningfully in the prior

proceeding.

     Respondent contends that petitioner did in fact participate

meaningfully in the prior proceeding.   We agree.   We have

previously indicated that signing court documents, participating

in settlement negotiations, exercising exclusive control over the

handling of a proceeding, and having the opportunity to raise an

innocent spouse claim are all probative of meaningful

participation under section 6015(g)(2).   See Deihl v.

Commissioner, supra at 162; Thurner v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 43,

53 (2003); Huynh v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-180, affd. 276

Fed. Appx. 634 (9th Cir. 2008).

     It is difficult for us to fathom what participating

meaningfully would mean if petitioner did not do it in the prior

proceeding.   Petitioner was the sole party and therefore

exercised exclusive control over the handling of the prior
                                 - 7 -

proceeding.   He was the one who provided the documents to AO

Janosek in his consideration of the return for 2004, the same

year at issue here.   He provided whatever substantiation was

available for the Schedule E expenses.       He negotiated a

settlement with AO Janosek regarding the casualty loss deduction

and Schedule E expenses and signed the decision document at

docket No. 27187-07S.   Moreover, he could have raised the issue

of relief under section 6015 but failed to do so.

     We find petitioner participated meaningfully in the prior

proceeding within the meaning of section 6015(g)(2).       We hold

therefore that petitioner is barred under section 6015(g)(2) from

obtaining relief from joint and several liability for 2004 under

section 6015.

     We have considered all arguments the parties made in

reaching our holdings, and, to the extent not mentioned, we find

them to be irrelevant or without merit.

     To reflect the foregoing,



                                         Decision will be entered for

                                 respondent.
