                        T.C. Memo. 2006-228



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



               DEBRA ANNE BANDERAS, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 7733-05.                Filed October 24, 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.


     James R. Monroe, for petitioner.

     Miriam C. Dillard, for respondent.



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION


     WHERRY, Judge:   This case arises from a petition for

judicial review filed in response to a determination concerning
                                - 2 -

relief from joint and several liability under section 6015.1       The

Court has sua sponte raised the question of whether the case

should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

                              Background

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

The stipulations of the parties, with accompanying exhibits, are

incorporated herein by this reference.      At the time the petition

in this case was filed, petitioner resided in Cape Coral,

Florida.

     Prior to his death on November 16, 1999, petitioner was

married to Julio C. Banderas (Dr. Banderas).      Petitioner and

Dr. Banderas filed a joint Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax

Return, for 1997.    Petitioner also filed a joint Form 1040 for

1999 as a surviving spouse.    Both returns reflected a balance due

and were not accompanied by full payment.

     In June of 2003, petitioner submitted to the Internal

Revenue Service (IRS) a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse

Relief.    Petitioner sought relief for underpayments of tax for

1997 and 1999 under section 6015(f).       On March 3, 2005, the IRS

issued to petitioner a notice of determination denying her

request for section 6015(f) relief.     Petitioner filed a timely




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

petition with this Court contesting the adverse determination,

and a trial was held in November of 2005.

     After posttrial briefs were filed, 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, the Court on August 30, 2006,

issued an order directing the parties to show cause why this case

should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.   Both parties

responded.   Respondent, noting specifically that no deficiency

had been asserted against petitioner for the years in issue,

agreed that the Court lacked jurisdiction here.   Petitioner

objected to dismissal, broadly referencing concerns of equity,

due process, and equal protection.

                            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
                                 - 4 -

recognized, as a corollary to the foregoing principle, that the

Court 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, 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

jurisdiction in disregard of the express provisions of the

statute enacted by Congress.   Accordingly, we are constrained to

dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                              An order of dismissal for

                                         lack of jurisdiction will be

                                         entered.
