Patricia M. Friday, Petitioner

TICK 124 T.C. No. 13

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

PATRICIA M. FRIDAY, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 6325-04.

Filed May 12, 2005.

P filed a petition seeking relief from joint and tax liability under sec. 6015, several moved for summary judgment. his summary judgment motion. motion to withdraw. this matter to R's office that specializes in sec. 6015, I.R.C., cases for further consideration by R before any further consideration by the Court.

R then moved to withdraw The Court granted the R also moved the Court I.R.C., and R to "remand" Held: R's motion for remand will be denied.

Held further:

This case will be returned to the general docket for trial in due course.

SERVED 'NAY 1 2 2005

Respondent contends that this case should be remanded because he did not sufficiently analyze the merits of petitioner's claim under section 6015(f).

In support of his request, respondent relies on Natl. Nutritional Foods Association v. Weinberger, 512 F.2d 688, 701 (2d Cir. 1975), Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 143 (1973), and Asarco, Inc. v. EPA, 616 F.2d 1153, 1160 (9th Cir. 1980).

Those cases, however, are examples where courts, in reviewing administrative action, remanded for further factual determinations that were deemed necessary to complete an inadequate administrative record or to make an adequate one.

In certain specific cases where statutory provisions reserve jurisdiction to the Commissioner, a case can also be remanded to the Commissioner's Appeals Office. Under sections 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1), this Court may consider certain collection actions taken or proposed by the Commissioner's Appeals Office. Under paragraph (2) of section 6330(d), the Commissioner's Appeals Office retains jurisdiction with respect to the determination made under section 6330.

As part of the process, a case may be remanded to the Appeals Office for further consideration.

See, e.g., Parker v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-226.

The situation is different, however, in a section 6015 proceeding, which is sometimes referred to as a "stand alone" the Court's general docket for trial in due course.

If respondent wishes to reconsider his determination or to provide petitioner with the opportunity for further consideration, that may be accomplished during the pretrial period.

If the amount of time before trial is insufficient to accomplish further administrative consideration, the parties may seek additional time by motion or other appropriate means.

Accordingly, respondent's motion for remand will be denied.

An appropriate order will be issued.