TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Emily Harris
Docket Number: 1554-15L
Judge: Halpern
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 01/15/2016
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 EMILY HARRIS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 1554-15L. ) ) ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before Judge James S. Halpern at Phoenix, Arizona, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) James S. Halpern Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. January 15, 2016 SERVED JAN 2 0 2018 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 3 4 5 Bench Opinion by Judge James S. Halpern December 11, 2015 Emily Harris v. Commissioner Docket No. 1554-15L THE COURT: The Court has decided to render 6 Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case and 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 the following represents the Court's Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion. Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended and in effect for all relevant periods, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Monetary amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This case is before the Court to review a determination by the Internal Revenue Service Appeals 19 Office following a collection due process hearing 20 conducted pursuant to section 6330 D3) and (c). 21 Petitioner's taxable years in issue are 2009 and 22 23 24 25 2011, and the issue before the Court is petitioner's income tax liability for each of those years. Respondent concedes that petitioner's unpaid income tax liability for 2009 is -$14.9 and that, except for 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 some collection costs, she has no income tax liability for 2011. Petitioner believes that, pursuant to section 1341, she is entitled to substantial refunds of overpaid taxes for both years. Appeals determined that the IRS could not issue a refund because there was no statutory authority to do so. Appeals also determined that, because of petitioner's financial condition, it would temporarily suspend collection activity on 10 petitioner's delinquent account (a decision made 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 before respondent conceded petitioner's reduced liabilities of $149 and zero, for 2009 and 2011, respectively). We review Appeals' determination pursuant to section 6330(d)(1). Some facts are stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts, with accompanying exhibits, is incorporated herein by this reference. Section 1341 governs the computation of income tax if (1) an amount of income was included in a taxpayer's gross income in a prior year or years because it appeared the taxpayer had an unrestricted right to such item and (2) a deduction exáeeding $3,000 is allowable in the current taxable year because, after the close of such prior taxable year, it is established that the taxpayer did not have an 866.488.DEPO www.Capita1ReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 unrestricted right to all or a portion of such income. See Kadillak v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 184, 199 (2006). Petitioner's claim as to the application of section 1341 appears to relate to her inclusion in gross income of Social Security benefits. A taxpayer is entitled to a deduction or a credit for repayment of disability or Social Security payments in the year in which she makes repayment. See generally Fa ani --- v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-111 at *8. During neither 2009 or 2011 did petitioner repay any amount reported as gross income for a previous year. Petitioner has thus failed to show her entitlement to the application of section 1341 in computing either her 2009 or 2011 Federal income tax. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Moreover, even if petitioner had in either year 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 repaid an amount previously reported as gross income in a prior year, we do not have jurisdiction in this proceeding to determine an overpayment in tax or to order a refund or credit of taxes paid. See Greene- . Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1 ( ). We have examined all of the documents that petitioner introduced into evidence. None of them support petitioner's claim. Petitioner has misread them. We shall sustain the determination, taking 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 into account respondent's concessions. That concludes this bench opinion. (Whereupon, at 10:33 a.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.Capita1ReportingCompany.com