2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 128">*128 Commissioner found to have not properly credited petitioner's account for partial relief from joint and several liability with former spouse.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
VASQUEZ, Judge: Respondent determined that petitioner qualifies for partial relief from joint and several liability pursuant to
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 128">*129 incorporated herein by this reference.
In 1992, petitioner married John F. Izzi. Petitioner and Mr. Izzi filed a joint Federal income tax return for 1992 (1992 return).
Respondent examined the 1992 return. Respondent determined a $ 7,058 deficiency and an $ 823 addition to tax 2 for 1992. The deficiency and addition to tax resulted from early distributions from petitioner's pension and Mr. Izzi's pension during 1992 -- petitioner's taxable distribution was $ 13,378 and Mr. Izzi's taxable distribution was $ 16,026. Of the additional $ 7,881 respondent determined was due, 45.5 percent ($ 3,585.86) was attributable to petitioner's pension distribution and 54.5 percent ($ 4,295.14) was attributable to Mr. Izzi's pension distribution. Ultimately, petitioner agreed to respondent's determination (i.e., that a $ 7,058 deficiency and an $ 823 addition to tax were due for 1992).
2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 128">*130 Petitioner and Mr. Izzi started filing separate income tax returns in 1994.
In 1997, petitioner and Mr. Izzi divorced.
Petitioner overpaid her income taxes for 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 in the amounts of $ 2,871, $ 3,268, $ 1,801, and $ 1,422, respectively. Petitioner received a refund of her 2000 tax of $ 1,801.
On March 14, 2001, petitioner mailed respondent a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief (And Separation of Liability and Equitable Relief). Petitioner solely requested equitable relief for 1992. Petitioner claimed to have paid $ 5,189.62 of the $ 7,881 owed for 1992. Petitioner also noted a permanent restraining order, issued by a local court, against Mr. Izzi relating to a felony committed against her family.
On February 13, 2002, Appeals Officer Therese A. Xavier wrote to petitioner in response to a telephone message she received from petitioner on February 8, 2002. Ms. Xavier attached a copy of petitioner's 1992 nonmaster file transcript detailing assessments (including interest), payments, and petitioner's balance for 1992 (1992 nonmaster file transcript).
Petitioner's 1992 nonmaster file transcript shows petitioner had a balance due, including interest, 2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 128">*131 of $ 2,182.26 as of February 28, 2002. 3 Petitioner's 1992 nonmaster file transcript also shows that respondent essentially had granted some form of
2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 128">*132 On February 14, 2002, respondent mailed petitioner a notice of determination concerning your request for relief from joint and several liability under
Form 2866, Certificate of Official Record, showed petitioner's account balance for 1992, as of March 21, 2002, as $ 5,385.56. This was based on a tax assessment of $ 7,058, a penalty assessment of $ 823, an interest assessment of $ 2,684.48, fees and costs of $ 10, a $ 1,921.62 credit applied on April 15, 1999, a $ 3,268 credit applied on April 15, 2000, a $ 1,801 credit applied on April 15, 2001, and a credit reversal of $ 1,801 applied on April 15, 2001.
OPINION
Petitioner does not dispute respondent's determination that she is entitled to partial relief pursuant to
At trial, respondent explained that he had granted petitioner
Petitioner's 1992 nonmaster file transcript appears to reflect this determination by allocating 45.5 percent of the tax and addition to tax for 1992 to petitioner. In the notice of2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 128">*135 determination, however, respondent appears to have granted relief only on the portion of the 1992 liability that remained outstanding around the date of the determination ($ 5,386) as listed in the Form 2866. 7 This was inappropriate. See
Petitioner's claim essentially is that respondent's calculation in the notice of determination is incorrect, she does not owe $ 1,801, and she may be due a refund. Petitioner conceded at trial that she was liable for the portion of the 1992 tax liability that was attributable to her (45.5 percent). We cannot tell from the notice of determination how respondent arrived at the $ 1,801 amount owed by petitioner. Accordingly, we shall review petitioner's 1992 liability step by step.
As an initial matter, we agree with respondent's computation contained in petitioner's 1992 nonmaster file transcript of the amounts allocable to petitioner2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 128">*136 for 1992 after granting partial
On April 15, 1999, respondent applied petitioner's 1998 overpayment as follows: $ 1,921.62 to the tax allocated to petitioner for 1992 and $ 949.38 to petitioner's employment tax liabilities. 8
Respondent claims that he applied petitioner's 1999 overpayment of $ 3,268 to the amount of the 1992 liability respondent allocated to petitioner pursuant to
Respondent withheld petitioner's overpayment for 2001. Petitioner's 2001 refund postdated the documents submitted to the Court. Accordingly, neither the $ 1,801 listed on the notice of determination nor the $ 2,182.26 reflected in petitioner's 1992 nonmaster file transcript as petitioner's balance as of February 28, 2002, included any credit for her 2001 overpayment. Respondent shall credit, as of April 15, 2002, $ 1,422 to reduce the amount of petitioner's liabilities.
In addition to the application of credits to petitioner's 1992 nonmaster file, respondent shall recalculate the interest accrued on petitioner's 1992 nonmaster file which2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 128">*138 reflects the allocation of liability respondent granted pursuant to
In reaching all of our holdings herein, we have considered all arguments made by the parties, and to the extent not mentioned above, we find them to be irrelevant or without merit.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered under
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. From the record, it is unclear whether this was an addition to tax or a penalty. The parties stipulated that it was an addition to tax. For clarity, we shall refer to this amount as an addition to tax.↩
3. It is unclear why the transcript shows the amount petitioner's balance will be as of Feb. 28, 2002, rather than as of the date the transcript was printed.↩
4. Respondent applied the remainder of petitioner's 1998 overpayment ($ 949.38) to petitioner's outstanding employment tax liabilities.↩
5. The similarity of numerical figures present in this case appears to be no more than coincidence.↩
7. Furthermore, the amount of relief granted was not 54.5 percent of the then-outstanding balance.↩
8. Petitioner's employment tax liabilities are not before the Court.↩