In re: Mae Asad

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: MCKEE, JORDAN and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 3. ALD-091

Case: 16-4392

Document: 003112537452

Page: 1

ALD-091

Date Filed: 02/13/2017

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 16-4392
___________
In re: MAE IZZEDIN ASAD,

Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States Tax Court
(Related to T.C. No. 032401-15)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
January 5, 2017
Before: MCKEE, JORDAN and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 13, 2017)
_________
OPINION *
_________
PER CURIAM
Before the Court is Mae Izzedin Asad’s petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 relating to a matter pending before the United States Tax Court. In
her petition, Asad asserts that, on November 12, 2013, the Commissioner of the Internal
Revenue Service issued a Notice of Deficiency to Asad and her husband stating that they

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

Case: 16-4392

Document: 003112537452

Page: 2

Date Filed: 02/13/2017

owed additional tax, penalties, and additions for the tax years 2008 and 2009. In
response, Asad requested equitable “innocent spouse” relief from her joint and several
liability. 1 26 U.S.C. § 6015(b). The Commissioner denied the request.
Asad petitioned the United States Tax Court for review of the Commissioner’s
determination. See id. In addition to challenging the Commissioner’s decision to deny
her equitable relief, Asad argued that the underlying Notice of Deficiency for tax year
2008 was untimely under the applicable statute of limitations. In response, the
Commissioner moved to “dismiss the issue” of whether the statute of limitations expired
before the Commissioner issued the notice. According to the Commissioner, the Tax
Court’s jurisdiction under § 6015(e) to review the agency ruling on Asad’s request for
equitable relief did not extend to her challenge to the underlying tax assessment. The Tax
Court agreed and, by order served on October 5, 2016, granted the Commissioner’s
motion.
On December 22, 2016, Asad filed this petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Asad asks us to issue a writ to “invalidate[] and vitiate[] forever”
the Commissioner’s Notice of Deficiency on timeliness grounds, and argues that

constitute binding precedent.
1
Taxpayers filing a joint return are generally jointly and severally liable for the entire tax
liability shown—or that should have been shown—on their return. 26 U.S.C.
§ 6013(d)(3). But § 6015 of the Internal Revenue Code allows the Commissioner to
relieve an “innocent spouse” signer of a joint return of his or her joint and several liability
for understatement or nonpayment of income tax.
2

Case: 16-4392

Document: 003112537452

Page: 3

Date Filed: 02/13/2017

mandamus is necessary because she “has nowhere else to go to attain the relief, most
certainly has no chance whatsoever with” the Commissioner.
We will deny the petition. Mandamus is a drastic remedy that is granted in only
extraordinary cases. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir.
2005). To demonstrate that mandamus is appropriate, a petitioner must establish that she
has “no other adequate means” to obtain the relief requested, and that she has a “clear and
indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir.
1996), superseded on other grounds by 3d Cir. L.A.R. 24.1(c) (1997). Here, Asad
essentially seeks review of the Tax Court’s order granting the Commissioner’s motion to
dismiss as to her statute-of-limitations argument. Mandamus relief is not appropriate
because the Tax Court’s ruling is reviewable on direct appeal under 26 U.S.C.
§ 7482(a)(1). See id. at 77 (stating that mandamus may “not be used as a mere substitute
for appeal”).
Accordingly, we will deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

3