T.C. Memo. 2004-170
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
CYNTHIA J. HALL, Petitioner, AND
THOMAS E. HALL, Intervenor v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 7459-02. Filed July 20, 2004.
Cynthia J. Hall, pro se.
Thomas E. Hall, pro se.
Randall E. Heath, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VASQUEZ, Judge: This case is before the Court on
respondent’s motion for summary judgment. The issue for decision
is whether respondent’s application of petitioner’s overpayment
relating to 1998 as a credit against petitioner’s 1995 tax
- 2 -
liability bars granting petitioner’s request for relief from
joint and several liability, pursuant to section 6015,1 for 1995.
Background
On or about April 15, 1996, petitioner and her husband,
Thomas E. Hall, requested an extension to file their joint
Federal income tax return for 1995. On this same date,
respondent applied a withholding credit of $19,079 to their
account for 1995.
On or about October 27, 1997, petitioner and her husband
filed a joint return for 1995 (joint return). They reported a
tax due of $20,949. Accordingly, after application of the
$19,079 withholding credit, there was a balance due of $1,870.
On December 8, 1997, respondent assessed the tax reported on
the joint return, a “late filing penalty” of $420.75, a “failure
to pay tax penalty” of $187, and “interest assessed” of $347.14
(1995 tax liability).
On or about April 15, 1999, petitioner filed a return for
1998 claiming a $54 refund due (1998 overpayment). That same
date, respondent applied petitioner’s 1998 overpayment to the
outstanding balance on the 1995 tax liability.
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code.
- 3 -
On June 7, 1999, respondent mailed petitioner a letter
notifying her that her 1998 overpayment had been applied to the
1995 tax liability.
On May 23, 2000, petitioner and her husband divorced. The
decree of dissolution of marriage, entered by the Superior Court
for the State of Alaska, incorporated the written agreement
between petitioner and her husband concerning tax consequences
and allocation of obligations. In their petition for dissolution
of marriage, dated March 31, 2000, petitioner and her husband had
listed their debts, who owed the debts, and who they agreed would
be responsible for paying the debts as follows:
Presently To Be
Owed To Amount Owed By Paid By
IRS-Thomas 1993
& 1994 $7,000.00 Husband Husband
IRS-Joint 1995 3,407.05 Joint Husband
IRS-Joint 1997 5,789.00 Joint Husband & Wife
On October 12, 2000, respondent received a $1,961.86 payment
on the 1995 tax liability. This payment represented petitioner’s
Alaska permanent fund payment for 2000.
On September 10, 2001, petitioner submitted a Form 8857,
Request For Innocent Spouse Relief, requesting equitable relief
for 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2000 (request for relief).2
2
The only year before the Court in this proceeding is
petitioner’s 1995 tax year.
- 4 -
On September 28, 2001, respondent received petitioner’s
request for relief.
On January 30, 2002, in a final notice of determination,
respondent determined that petitioner was not entitled to relief
for 1995 pursuant to section 6015 because she submitted the
request for relief more than 2 years after respondent’s first
collection activity against her.
On April 16, 2002, petitioner, while residing in Soldotna,
Alaska, filed a letter which the Court treated as an imperfect
petition for determination of relief from joint and several
liability on a joint return. That same day, the Court ordered
petitioner to file, on or before May 14, 2002, a proper amended
petition for determination of relief from joint and several
liability on a joint return.
On May 21, 2002, petitioner filed an amended petition for
determination of relief from joint and several liability on a
joint return seeking review of respondent’s determination to deny
equitable relief.
On April 29, 2003, respondent filed a motion for summary
judgment.
On April 30, 2003, the Court ordered petitioner to file a
response to respondent’s motion for summary judgment on or before
May 14, 2003, and calendared the motion for summary judgment for
hearing at the Court’s Anchorage, Alaska, trial session.
- 5 -
On May 19, 2003, petitioner filed a response to respondent’s
motion for summary judgment.
On June 24, 2003, the Court filed intervenor’s reply to
petitioner’s response to respondent’s motion and intervenor’s
response to respondent’s motion for summary judgment.
On September 2, 2003, petitioner filed a response to
intervenor’s reply to petitioner’s response to motion for summary
judgment.
As of the date of the hearing, the outstanding balance on
the 1995 tax liability was $859.
Discussion
An election pursuant to section 6015(b), (c), or (f) must be
made within 2 years of the Commissioner’s first collection
activity taken after July 22, 1998, against the taxpayer making
the election. Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform
Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 3201(g)(2), 112 Stat. 740;
sec. 6015(b)(1)(E) and (c)(3)(B); Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 5,
2000-1 C.B. 447, 449.3 The offset of an overpayment is a
collection activity pursuant to section 6015. Campbell v.
Commissioner, 121 T.C. 290, 292 (2003); see also secs. 1.6015-
5(b)(2)(i), 1.6015-9, Income Tax Regs. (defining an offset of an
overpayment against a liability pursuant to section 6402 as a
3
We note that petitioner does not question the validity of
Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447; therefore, we need not
address the validity of the Revenue Procedure.
- 6 -
collection activity effective for requests for relief from joint
and several liability filed on or after July 18, 2002).
Pursuant to section 6402(a), respondent applied petitioner’s
1998 overpayment against her 1995 tax liability. Accordingly,
respondent engaged in a collection activity against petitioner.
Respondent’s first collection activity after July 22, 1998,
occurred on April 15, 1999. Petitioner submitted her request for
relief on September 10, 2001. Accordingly, petitioner made her
request for relief more than 2 years after respondent’s first
collection activity after July 22, 1998. Therefore, petitioner’s
request for relief was untimely, and she is not entitled to
relief pursuant to section 6015. See Campbell v. Commissioner,
supra at 292-293.
Petitioner claims that it is unfair to deny her relief
because she thought her divorce decree relieved her of the 1995
tax liability. While we sympathize with petitioner, her request
for relief was untimely.
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order and
decision will be entered.