                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2010-101



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                  JOAN M. SIMCOX, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 19349-09S.              Filed July 27, 2010.




     Arthur K. Bartlett, for petitioner.

     Olivia J. Hyatt, for respondent.



     KROUPA, Judge:   This case was heard pursuant to the

provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect

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

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




     1
      All section references are the Internal Revenue Code unless
otherwise indicated.
                                - 2 -

this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other

case.

     This matter is before the Court on respondent’s motion to

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that petitioner

did not timely file a petition within 90 days of respondent’s

determination denying petitioner relief from joint and several

liability under section 6015(f) (determination notice).

Petitioner argues that respondent’s determination was invalidated

by our Opinion in Lantz v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. 131 (2009),

revd. 607 F.3d 479 (7th Cir. 2010).     She argues that the relevant

period for filing a petition was therefore the 6-month period

that applies if no determination is made.    We hold that the

determination was valid, and we shall accordingly grant

respondent’s motion because the petition was not filed within 90

days of the determination notice.

                            Background

     The following information is stated for purposes of

resolving the pending motion.   Petitioner resided in Cornelius,

North Carolina, at the time she filed the petition.

     Respondent first initiated collection activity against

petitioner for the taxable years at issue, 2002 and 2003, on

February 26, 2005.   Petitioner requested relief for those years

on August 17, 2007, which is more than two years after the

collection activity began for those years.    Respondent denied her
                               - 3 -

relief in the determination notice dated November 20, 2007.

Respondent explained he was denying her relief under section

6015(f) because petitioner requested relief more than two years

after respondent began collection activity against her for those

years.

     Petitioner did not file a petition to contest respondent’s

determination denying relief within 90 days of the determination

notice.   The 90-day period for timely filing a petition expired

on February 19, 2008.   Instead, petitioner filed the petition

with this Court on August 19, 2009, approximately 639 days after

mailing the determination notice.2     Respondent filed the motion

to dismiss on the grounds that the petition was not timely filed.

                            Discussion

     We are asked to decide whether we have jurisdiction to

review respondent’s denial of petitioner’s request for relief.

We begin with an overview of our jurisdiction to review requests

for relief under section 6015(f).

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

exercise jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress.

Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985).     There are three


     2
      Petitioner timely filed a stand-alone petition with respect
to taxable years 1999, 2000 and 2001 on Sept. 3, 2008. She then
moved to amend the petition in that case to include the 2002 and
2003 taxable years. We denied petitioner’s motion to amend the
petition but treated the amended petition as a petition in a new
and separate, but related, case involving taxable years 2002 and
2003. That case is presently before us.
                                 - 4 -

jurisdictional bases for the Court to review a claim for section

6015 relief.     Van Arsdalen v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 135, 138

(2004); King v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 118, 121-122 (2000);

Corson v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 354, 363-364 (2000).      First, a

taxpayer may seek relief by raising the matter as an affirmative

defense in a petition for redetermination of a deficiency filed

under section 6213 (i.e., a deficiency proceeding).     King v.

Commissioner, supra at 121-122; Corson v. Commissioner, supra at

363; Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 287-289 (2000).     A

taxpayer may also request relief in a petition for review of a

lien or levy action.    See secs. 6320(c), 6330(c)(2)(A)(i).

     Finally, a taxpayer may file a “stand alone” petition in

this Court seeking relief where the Commissioner has issued a

final determination denying the taxpayer’s claim for relief or

the Commissioner has failed to rule on the taxpayer’s claim

within six months of its filing.    See sec. 6015(e)(1); Mora v.

Commissioner, 117 T.C. 279 (2001); King v. Commissioner, supra at

122; Corson v. Commissioner, supra at 363; Fernandez v.

Commissioner, 114 T.C. 324, 329 (2000).    The stand alone petition

must be filed no later than the close of the 90th day after the

Commissioner issues a final determination or after the date which

is six months after the initial request for relief if the

Commissioner has not issued a determination.    See sec.

6015(e)(1)(A).
                                - 5 -

      The petition filed in this case was a stand alone petition

because it was not raised in a deficiency or collection action.

Petitioner argues that the relevant period for filing a petition

is the 6-month period that applies if no determination has been

made because respondent’s determination regarding her claim is

invalid.    Petitioner claims respondent’s determination denying

her claim was invalidated by our decision in Lantz.         We held in

Lantz that the Commissioner abused his discretion in denying

section 6015(f) relief on the sole ground that the request was

filed more than 2 years after the collection activity began.

Petitioner argues that respondent’s determination is therefore

invalid because it denied relief on the same grounds.        We

disagree.

      Petitioner’s argument would require us to review the merits

of every petition for relief to determine whether we have

jurisdiction.    Petitioner’s argument is too broad.   We have

previously held that our jurisdiction to review a request for

relief is not predicated on whether the taxpayer qualifies for

relief under one of the subsections.      See Gormeley v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-252.      If jurisdiction is lacking,

as it is here because the petition was not timely filed, we do

not and should not proceed to address the merits of whether

petitioner as the requesting spouse is entitled to relief.        See

id.
                                 - 6 -

     Furthermore, our jurisdiction to review a denial of section

6015(f) relief is predicated on whether a timely petition was

filed.   The 2-year limitation period for a taxpayer to request

relief is not the same limitation period for determining whether

a timely petition for review was filed.       Timeliness is focused on

whether a determination was issued to the requesting spouse and

when the requesting spouse filed a petition.        Petitioner’s

argument confuses two separate and distinct limitation periods.

We will therefore not address petitioner’s argument that the

determination was invalid because petitioner did not timely file

a petition to confer jurisdiction on this Court.

     Respondent issued the determination notice to petitioner on

November 20, 2007.   Petitioner was therefore required to file a

petition by February 19, 2008.    Petitioner did not file a

petition by then, however.   We therefore find that the petition

was not timely filed.   Accordingly, we shall grant respondent’s

motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

     To reflect the foregoing,

                                              An order of dismissal for

                                         lack of jurisdiction will be

                                         entered.
