T.C. Summary Opinion 2003-71
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
PAMELA RENEE WIGGINS, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 4118-01S. Filed June 11, 2003.
Pamela Renee Wiggins, pro se.
Dustin M. Starbuck, for respondent.
CARLUZZO, Special Trial Judge: This case was filed in
accordance with the provisions of sections 6015(e)(1) and 7463 of
the Internal Revenue Code in effect at the time the petition was
filed. The decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other
court, and this opinion should not be cited as authority.
In reliance upon the provisions of section 6015, petitioner
made an administrative request for relief from a 1992 Federal
- 2 -
income tax liability. That liability is based in part on an
unpaid liability reported on a timely filed joint 1992 Federal
income tax return, and in part upon a deficiency determined and
assessed several years later. Petitioner’s request was denied in
a notice of final determination issued by respondent on February
21, 2001. She timely petitioned this Court for review of
respondent’s determination. See sec. 6015(e).
The issue for decision is whether respondent’s refusal to
relieve petitioner from liability under section 6015 with respect
to a 1992 Federal income tax liability is an abuse of discretion.
We hold that it was not, but for a reason other than that
advanced by respondent.
Background
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. At
the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Roanoke,
Virginia.
Petitioner and Peter Stimeling (Mr. Stimeling) were married
to each other on June 9, 1990. They separated in February 1993
and were divorced on October 25, 1994. During 1992, petitioner
and Mr. Stimeling worked together as employees of Valley View
Associates, Ltd. Each received a Form W-2, Wage and Tax
Statement, for that year on which the following information is
reported:
- 3 -
Wages Federal Income Tax W/H
Petitioner $23,708 $3,001
Mr. Stimeling 34,707 5,078
During 1992, Mr. Stimeling was also the sole proprietor of S&S
Repairs, a business that provided janitorial and repair services.
Mr. Stimeling asked petitioner if she would agree to file a
joint 1992 Federal income tax return, even though they were
separated at the time and soon to be divorced. Petitioner
agreed, expecting to see and sign the return after it had been
prepared and before it was mailed to be filed. In prior years
(presumably 1990 and 1991), petitioner filed joint Federal income
tax returns with Mr. Stimeling. For each of those years the
return was prepared by a paid income tax return preparer,
reviewed by petitioner, and signed by petitioner.
The same paid income tax return preparer that had prepared
petitioner’s returns for previous years prepared what purports to
be a joint 1992 Federal income tax return for petitioner and Mr.
Stimeling (the joint return). The joint return was received,
timely filed, and processed by respondent. The income reported
on the joint return consists of the wages reported on the above-
mentioned Forms W-2 and the net profit reported on a Schedule C,
Profit or Loss From Business, for S&S Repairs. Taxable income
reported on the joint return is computed taking into account
itemized deductions. The “total tax” liability reported on the
- 4 -
joint return, i.e., $13,643, takes into account the section 1 tax
applicable to the taxable income reported on the joint return and
the section 1401 tax (self-employment tax) applicable to the net
profit reported on the Schedule C. Against this amount, Federal
income tax withholdings, as reported on the above-mentioned Forms
W-2, are applied, resulting in an amount due of $5,768, none of
which was paid with the joint return.
Petitioner neither reviewed nor signed the joint return.
She did not authorize Mr. Stimeling to sign this or any other
Federal income tax return on her behalf.
Toward the end of 1993 or the beginning of 1994, petitioner
learned that respondent was attempting to garnish the wages of
Mr. Stimeling in order to collect the then-outstanding 1992
Federal income tax liability. In order to avoid having her own
wages garnished (and to avoid the attendant embarrassment in her
workplace), she entered into an installment agreement with
respondent with respect to that liability. She made the
following payments in accordance with that installment agreement:
Date Payment
January 27, 1994 $175
February 7, 1994 175
February 25, 1994 175
March 29, 1994 175
April 28, 1994 175
- 5 -
Thereafter, refunds claimed on her individual Federal income tax
returns filed for the years 1993, 1994, and 1995 were applied to
the outstanding 1992 liability as follows:
Date Amount of Refund
August 25, 1995 (1993 refund) $1,342
August 25, 1995 (1994 refund) 1,876
April 15, 1996 (1995 refund) 807
On May 23, 1995, respondent issued a notice of deficiency to
petitioner and Mr. Stimeling that indicated respondent had
determined a deficiency of $588 in their 1992 Federal income tax.
The deficiency results from the reduction of a claimed itemized
deduction for interest expense and inclusion of interest income
not reported on the joint return. A petition to this Court was
not filed in response to that notice and the deficiency was
assessed.
On September 25, 1995, petitioner filed an individual 1992
Federal income tax return as a married person filing a separate
return (the separate return). On the separate return, petitioner
(1) reported the wages previously attributed to her on the joint
return; (2) included what appears to be the interest income
referenced in the notice of deficiency; and (3) computed her
Federal income tax liability taking into account the standard
deduction appropriate to her filing status. She applied the
Federal income tax withholdings from her wages taken into account
- 6 -
previously on the joint return against the tax shown on the
return and claimed a refund of $141, which she received in due
course.
In a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief, signed
by petitioner and dated November 5, 1998, petitioner requested
section 6015 relief. The Form 8857 used by petitioner does not
reflect the repeal of section 6013(e) and enactment of section
6015. Nevertheless, it appears that respondent considered her
claim in accordance with the provisions of section 6015. In this
regard, on February 21, 2001, in a notice of final determination,
respondent advised petitioner that she was not entitled to relief
under subsections (b), (c), or (f) of section 6015.
Discussion
We are somewhat perplexed by the series of events just
described. Of particular concern is the fact that the untimely
separate return was processed after respondent had previously
treated the joint return as petitioner’s and issued a notice of
deficiency to her based upon the information and items reported
on the joint return.
In her administrative request for relief petitioner
apparently claimed that she neither authorized nor consented to
the joint return. Petitioner’s claim on this point was addressed
in a letter dated April 29, 2002, in which respondent’s Appeals
officer stated:
- 7 -
It would appear that you allowed your husband to
prepare a joint return and to sign your name to it.
You filed a separate return 30 months later. That
action and the other facts of the case are consistent
with changing one’s mind, not with having the intent
to file separately initially.
Based upon that conclusion, which is inconsistent with the
treatment of the separate return, respondent’s consideration of
petitioner’s claim for section 6015 relief proceeded as though
petitioner filed a joint Federal income tax return for 1992.
In the petition, petitioner alleges that, with respect to
the joint return, Mr. Stimeling “filed our 1992 taxes without my
signature. * * * I kept asking him when I was going to need to
sign it. Finally he told me he had signed it.” At trial,
petitioner readily admitted that she agreed to file a joint
return with Mr. Stimeling, but with the expectation that before
the return was filed she would have the opportunity to review and
sign the return. She further explained that she agreed to the
installment agreement in order to avoid embarrassment in her work
place.
Petitioner’s credible trial testimony supports the
allegations made in the petition. Petitioner did not review or
sign the joint return before it was filed. Furthermore, we
accept her claim that she did not authorize her former spouse to
sign her name to the joint return.
Respondent’s reasons for processing the separate return
after the joint return have not been explained. Nevertheless,
- 8 -
we are satisfied that the separate return is petitioner’s 1992
Federal income tax return, and, under the circumstances, the
joint return was not made pursuant to a valid election on
petitioner’s part. Cf. Cassity v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-
181; see sec. 1.6013-1(a)(2), Income Tax Regs., sec. 1.6061-1(a),
Income Tax Regs. Petitioner’s agreement to file a joint return
with Mr. Stimeling at his request did not authorize him to sign
the return on her behalf or to file it without first allowing her
to review it.
It follows that petitioner’s request for section 6015 relief
from the 1992 Federal income tax liability currently assessed
against her must be denied because she did not file a joint
return for that year.1 See Raymond v. Commissioner, 119 T.C.
191, 195-197 (2002). Respondent’s denial of section 6015 relief
for that year, albeit based upon different grounds and perhaps
ironically, cannot be considered an abuse of discretion.
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
1
Taking into account the sec. 6511 period of limitations,
petitioner’s remedy, if any, appears to be a traditional claim
for refund.