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. 

T.C. Memo. 2005-33

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

MARIA RIVERA, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 7394-03. Filed February 24, 2005.

Maria Rivera, pro se.

John W. Strate, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

VASQUEZ, Judge: Respondent determined that petitioner

qualifies for relief from joint and several liability pursuant to

section 6015(c) for 1988 and 1989.1 After concessions, the issue
- 2 -

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. Respondent

based this concession on his administrative practice/policy of

refraining from offsetting overpayments during the pendency of a

sec. 6015 relief request. Apart from accepting respondent’s

concession, we make no findings regarding the refund of these

amounts.

for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to a refund of her

1998, 1999, and 2001 overpayments.2

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. 
- 3 -

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 section 6015(c) relief for 1988 and 1989. 

Petitioner’s liability for the 1988 and 1989 tax years was

reduced to zero; i.e., she was relieved of the entire tax

liability, including penalties and interest, for 1988 and 1989. 

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 section 6015(c). She

argues that, in light of respondent’s granting section 6015

relief, she is entitled to a refund of her overpayments. 

Respondent concedes that petitioner made a timely claim for

refund. Respondent contends, however, that section 6015(g)

prohibits any refund in this case. 

Section 6015(g)(3) provides that “No credit or refund shall

be allowed as a result of an election under subsection (c).” 

Accordingly, because petitioner was granted relief pursuant to
- 4 -

section 6015(c), petitioner is not entitled to a refund of her

income tax refund of $657 for 1998 or $872 for 1999. Sec.

6015(g)(1), (3).

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 another agency to

satisfy her delinquent child support obligation. 

Section 6015(g)(1) applies to credits or refunds only to the

extent attributable to the application of section 6015. 

Petitioner’s delinquent child support obligation, and

respondent’s transfer of petitioner’s overpayment to another

agency, is unrelated to the application of section 6015. See

sec. 6402(c). Accordingly, section 6015(g) is inapplicable to

petitioner’s 2001 overpayment.

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 Rule 155.