Perkins v. Comm'r
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JACOBS,
Petitioner resided in Arizona when he filed his petition.
Petitioner and his wife belatedly filed joint returns for 1995 and 2000 on which they reported tax of $ 4,219 and $ 5,892, respectively. Respondent assessed additions to tax and interest with respect to the tax shown on each return.
Petitioner filed a joint return for 1999 on February 26, 2004. That return showed, and respondent does not dispute, that petitioner overpaid his 1999 tax liability by $ 1,922. All of petitioner's 1999 tax payments were made through withholding *260 credits.
Petitioner argued that he should be permitted to apply the 1999 overpayment to amounts owed for 1995 and 2000. The central dispute in Perkins I, as well as herein, was whether petitioner timely filed a claim for a refund of his 1999 Federal income tax overpayment. Because petitioner filed that claim on February 26, 2004, it would generally be barred by the section 6511 period of limitations. Petitioner claimed the statute was tolled, and the section 6511 period of limitations did not bar his claim for refund of his 1999 overpayment, because he was "financially disabled" within the meaning of
In Perkins I we found that respondent's Appeals settlement officer misapprehended the applicable law in considering whether petitioner was financially disabled, and thus we remanded the case to respondent's Appeals Office for reconsideration. The remand necessitated our preventing respondent from proceeding with his proposed enforced collection action until respondent's Appeals settlement officer could reconsider petitioner's claim that he was financially disabled.
Pursuant to our order to remand, on July 18, 2008, one of respondent's Appeals settlement officers met with *261 petitioner to discuss the issue of tolling the statute of limitations pursuant to
In Perkins I we described the statutory framework regarding enforced collection activity by the Secretary. Petitioner's sole argument as to the procedures that have been employed thus far is that respondent's proposed levy should not proceed because petitioner's 1999 overpayment is available to offset his 1995 and 2000 tax liabilities.
As we noted in Perkins I: As directed by n.15 Additionally, the taxpayer must certify than no person, including the taxpayer's spouse, was authorized to act on behalf of the taxpayer in financial matters during the relevant period. [See FOOTNOTE TO BLOCK QUOTE
END OF FOOTNOTE TO BLOCK QUOTE
Following remand of this case to respondent's Appeals Office, petitioner attempted to obtain a physician's written statement as described in
Petitioner's medical record, including detailed notes compiled by a therapist and a psychiatrist at Saint Vincent's, was submitted at the trial of this case. Respondent objected to the admission of the notes into evidence as well as petitioner's testimony *264 concerning his medical history. We need not decide whether the evidence is admissible, because we find that it is insufficient to establish that petitioner was financially disabled within the meaning of
Nowhere in petitioner's medical record is there any statement by a physician to the effect that petitioner was incapable of managing his financial affairs, or that he suffered from an impairment that could be expected to result in death (or had lasted or could be expected to last for 12 months or more), or that any specific period was associated with such impairment. On the contrary, petitioner testified that from 2000 through 2003 he earned significant amounts of income working for the same employer and during those years he paid bills, entered into lease agreements together with his wife, and was "predominantly in charge of the household finances."
Petitioner has not shown that he was financially disabled for purposes of
Because petitioner's *265 1999 overpayment is not available to offset his 1995 and 2000 tax liabilities, respondent may proceed to collect by levy additions to tax and interest petitioner owes for 1995 and 2000.
To reflect the foregoing,
Footnotes
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended.↩
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.