Mae Asad v.
677 F. App'x 87
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2013 the IRS issued a Notice of Deficiency to Mae I. Asad and her husband for tax years 2008–2009 asserting additional tax, penalties, and additions.
- Asad sought equitable innocent spouse relief under 26 U.S.C. § 6015(b); the Commissioner denied relief and Asad petitioned the Tax Court for review.
- In the Tax Court proceeding Asad also argued the 2008 Notice of Deficiency was time-barred by the statute of limitations.
- The Commissioner moved to dismiss that statute-of-limitations challenge, arguing the Tax Court’s § 6015(e) jurisdiction to review equitable relief did not include collateral challenges to the underlying deficiency; the Tax Court granted the motion on October 5, 2016.
- Asad filed a mandamus petition in this court asking the court to invalidate the 2008 Notice of Deficiency as untimely and to vacate the Tax Court’s dismissal.
- The court denied mandamus, finding mandamus inappropriate because Asad has an adequate remedy by direct appeal under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1) and she must show a clear and indisputable right to the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is proper to compel relief invalidating the Notice of Deficiency | Asad: mandamus is necessary because she has no other avenue and the Notice is untimely | Commissioner: Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the statute-of-limitations challenge in a § 6015(e) proceeding; mandamus inappropriate | Denied: mandamus is a drastic remedy; Asad has an adequate remedy by direct appeal, so mandamus is not available |
| Whether the Tax Court erred in dismissing the statute-of-limitations claim in a § 6015(e) proceeding | Asad: Tax Court should adjudicate timeliness of the underlying deficiency | Commissioner: § 6015(e) review is limited to equitable relief denial, not the underlying deficiency | Court did not reach merits; held that review should proceed by normal appeal rather than extraordinary mandamus |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2005) (mandamus is a drastic remedy reserved for extraordinary cases)
- Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74 (3d Cir. 1996) (mandamus requires no adequate alternative remedy and a clear, indisputable right)