MEMORANDUM OPINION
CHIECHI, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (respondent's motion). We shall grant respondent's motion.
BACKGROUND
The parties agree and/or do not dispute the following.
Petitioner resided in Franklin Square, New York, at the time she filed the petition in this case.
Petitioner and her spouse jointly filed a Federal income tax return (return) for each of their taxable years 1997 (1997 return), 2000 (2000 return), and 2003 (2003 return). Each of those returns showed tax due. Petitioner and her spouse did not pay the tax due shown in the 1997 return, the 2000 return, or the 2003 return.
Respondent has not asserted a deficiency for any of petitioner's taxable years 1997, 2000, and 2003.
On April 4, 2005, respondent received from petitioner Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief (and Separation of Liability and Equitable Relief), in which she requested relief under
2007 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 41">*42 On January 19, 2006, respondent issued to petitioner a notice of determination in which respondent denied her relief under
On January 10, 2007, the Court issued an Order (Court's January 10, 2007 Order), in which the Court directed each party to file a response to that Order addressing the Court's jurisdiction over the instant case in light of the amendment to
DISCUSSION
The Act amended
In respondent's response, respondent represents: On December 21, 2005, petitioner fully paid the liabilities for taxable years 1997, 2000 and 2003. * * * * * * Thus, the liabilities for taxable years 1997, 2000 and 2003 did not remain unpaid as of the date of enactment. As a result, the amendments to In petitioner's response, petitioner concedes that2007 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 41">*44 no tax liability remains unpaid as of December 20, 2006. Accordingly, Petitioner concedes that she is not seeking to invoke this Court's jurisdiction under amended by the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. She is seeking jurisdictions [sic] under to amendment.
* * * * * * *
* * * As previously stated, in
In petitioner's response, petitioner points out that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where an appeal in the instant case would normally lie, has not addressed the issue of whether this Court has jurisdiction under
We held in
We conclude that we do not have jurisdiction over the instant case. That is because the parties agree that the respective liabilities for tax for the taxable years 1997, 2000, and 2003 did not remain unpaid as of December 20, 2006, the date of the enactment of the Act.
To reflect the foregoing,
An order granting respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction will be entered.
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times.↩