                        T.C. Memo. 2006-246



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



              DEANN MARIE MCCAUSLAND, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 2486-05.                Filed November 13, 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.


     DeAnn Marie McCausland, pro se.

     James E. Cannon, 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 Matthew A. McCausland

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

Federal income tax return for 2002.    The return reflected a

balance due and was not accompanied by full payment.

     In July of 2004, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) received

from petitioner a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief.

Petitioner sought relief for an underpayment of tax for 2002

under section 6015(f).   On January 13, 2005, 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 the petition

was filed, petitioner provided an address in New Mexico.     The

case is presently calendared for trial at the session of the

Court commencing on November 27, 2006, in Albuquerque, New

Mexico.



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

     After the just-described petition was 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, respondent on September 12, 2006,

filed the above-referenced motion to dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction.   Respondent noted specifically that no deficiency

for 2002 had been asserted against petitioner or Mr. McCausland.

The Court issued an order directing petitioner to file any

response to respondent’s motion on or before October 11, 2006.

To date, no such response has been received from petitioner.

                            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
                                 - 4 -

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

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.
