Rivera v. Comm'r
This text of 2005 T.C. Memo. 33 (Rivera v. Comm'r) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
*33 Petitioner was not entitled to interest expense deduction relating to years in issue. Accuracy-related penalty was applicable to underpayment attributable to stockholder payments.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
VASQUEZ, Judge: Respondent determined that petitioner qualifies for relief from joint and several liability pursuant to
*34 FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time she filed the petition, petitioner resided in California.
Petitioner filed joint income tax returns with Ricardo Rivera for 1988 and 1989. By 2001, the balances due for 1988 and 1989 were more than $ 24,000 and $ 32,000, respectively.
On December 4, 1990, petitioner and Mr. Rivera divorced.
On April 15, 1999, respondent offset petitioner's income tax refund for 1998 in the amount of $ 657 against petitioner's income tax liability for 1988.
On April 15, 2000, respondent offset petitioner's income tax refund for 1999 in the amount of $ 872 against petitioner's income tax liability for 1988.
On October 2, 2000, petitioner submitted to respondent a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief. Petitioner requested relief for 1988 and 1989.
On August 24, 2001, respondent issued petitioner a final notice in which respondent determined that petitioner was entitled to
On April 8, 2002, respondent offset petitioner's income tax refund for 2001 in the amount of $ 797 and transferred it to another agency to satisfy her delinquent child support obligation which totaled approximately $ 10,000.
OPINION
Petitioner does not dispute respondent's determination that she is entitled to relief pursuant to
Respondent concedes that petitioner made a timely claim for refund. Respondent contends, however, that
Petitioner also requested a refund of her 2001 overpayment. Respondent did not apply this payment toward the 1988 or 1989 tax liability. Respondent transferred it to*36 another agency to satisfy her delinquent child support obligation.
In reaching 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
Footnotes
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. Respondent concedes that, subject to
sec. 6402 , he will refund petitioner $ 753 and $ 300 related to her 2000 tax year that respondent offset against petitioner's tax liability for 1988 on Mar. 12, 2001, and Sept. 17, 2001, respectively.Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2005 T.C. Memo. 33, 2005 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-commr-tax-2005.