Campbell v. Comm'r
Opinion
*37 Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment denied, respondent's cross motion for summary judgment granted. .
By Final Notice of Determination dated Nov. 6, 2001, R determined that P was not entitled to relief from joint and several liability relating to 1989 because the request was, pursuant to
sec. 6015, I.R.C. , filed more than 2 years after R's first collection activity against P. On Feb. 1, 2002, P filed, pursuant tosec. 6015(e)(1), I.R.C. , a petition seeking review of R's determination. On Mar. 10, 2003, P filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and on Mar. 31, 2003, R filed a Notice of Objection and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The issue in both parties' motions is whether R's application of P's overpayment, relating to 1998, as a credit against P's 1989 tax liability is, pursuant tosec. 6015, I.R.C. , a collection activity that bars P's request for relief relating to 1989. Held: R's offset of P's overpayment is, pursuant tosec. 6015, I.R.C. , a collection activity.Held, further, P's*38 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied.
Held, further, R's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. There is no genuine issue as to whether P is entitled to relief from joint and several liability relating to 1989 because P's election was, pursuant to
sec. 6015, I.R.C. , filed more than 2 years after R's first collection activity against P.
*291 OPINION
FOLEY, Judge: This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Respondent's Notice of Objection and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to
*39 Background
On May 13, 1999, respondent applied, pursuant to
By Final Notice of Determination dated November 6, 2001, respondent determined that petitioner was not entitled to relief from joint and several liability relating to 1989 because the request was, pursuant to
On February 1, 2002, petitioner, while residing in Tucson, Arizona, filed a petition pursuant to
*292 Discussion
An election pursuant to
*41 Petitioner contends that respondent's offset of her overpayment is not, pursuant to
Contentions we have not addressed are irrelevant, moot, or meritless.
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order and decision will be entered.
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. On July 18, 2002, the Commissioner published final regulations, pursuant to
section 6015 , that define a collection activity to include "an offset of an overpayment of the requesting spouse against a liability undersection 6402 ".Sec. 1.6015-5(b)(2)(i), Income Tax Regs . These regulations are applicable to all requests for relief from joint and several liability filed on or after July 18, 2002, and, thus, not applicable to petitioner's request, which was filed before that date.Sec. 1.6015-9, Income Tax Regs↩ .
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.