TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Miloud Tarif, Petitioner and Cherie A. Tarif, Intervenor
Docket Number: 5983-08S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/19/2009
Pages: 8

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , DC 2021 7 MILOUD TARIF ; 1-1 - and Petitioner , CHERIE A . TARIF, ) Docket Nos . 598308S 5984-08S ~~^/~FvJ Intervenor, ) ) C v . Respondent . O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s 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 proceedings in the above case before the undersigned at Boston, Massachusetts, containing the oral findings of fact and opinion rendered on February 3, 2009 . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate decision will be entered . (Signed) Laurence J . Whalen Judge Dated : Washington, D .C . March 19, 2009 SERVED Mar 24 2009 3 1 Bench Opinion by Senior Judge Laurence J . Whale n 2 Tarif v . Commissioner Docket Nos . : 5983-08, 5984-08 3 February 3, 200 9 4 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render 5 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case . And the 6 following represents the Court's oral findings--of-fac t 7 and opinion . 8 This proceeding involves two consolidated 9 cases . The first case, Docket Number 5983-08S, is an 10 action for the determination of relief from joint an d 11 several liability on a joint return, brought pursuant to 12 Sections 6015(e) and 7453(f)(1) of the Internal Revenue 13 Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 320 through 325 and 14 Rules 170 through 175 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice 15 and Procedure . 16 The second case, Docket Number 5984-08S, is a 17 levy action brought pursuant to Sections 6330(d) an d 18 7463(f)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, a s 19 amended, and Rules 330 through 334, and Rules 170 through 20 175 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 21 Hereinafter, all section numbers refer to the 22 Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all rul e 23 references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 24 Procedure . 25 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 4 1 authority granted by Section 7459(b) and Rule 152 . 2 Petitioner, Mr . Miloud Tarif, represente d 3 himself and Intervenor, Ms . Cherie A . Tarif, represented 4 herself in this proceeding . Ms . Erika B . Cormier , 5 Attorney At Law, appeared on behalf of Respondent . 6 Simply put, the issue underlying both of the 7 subject consolidated cases is whether Respondent' s 8 Appeals officer abused his discretion by issuing the 9 Notice of Determination Concerning Your Request for 10 Relief from Joint and Several Liability under Section 11 6015 to Petitioner on February 21, 2008, in which he 12 determined that Petitioner is not entitled to relief from 13 joint and several liability for taxable years 1996, 1998, 14 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, referred t o 15 herein as notice of determination . 16 Both parties agree that each of th e 17 consolidated cases turns on the resolution of this issue . 18 The parties filed a Stipulation of Facts . 19 The facts set forth in that stipulation are include d 2.0 herein by this reference . Petitioner and intervenor also 21 testified at trial . 22 The facts necessary to decide this case 23 include the following : 24 On or about June 9, 2006, Petitioner filed 25 Request for Innocent Spouse Relief on IRS Form 8857 . Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 I 1 Approximately, 20 months later, afte r 2 investigating Petitioner's request and discussing it with 3 Petitioner's attorney, the appeals officer to whom th e 4 request was assigned sent a letter to Petitioner' s 5 attorney, dated February 13, 2008, stating that he had to 6 conclude Petitioner's "innocent spouse case, sinc e 7 Petitioner had not pursued his appeal in many months of 8 keeping the case open . " 9 The letter states that the notice of 10 determination would be issued within a few weeks . 11 Attached to the letter was a detaile d 12 analysis which stated that Petitioner was not entitled to 13 relief from joint and several liability for 1996, 1998, 14 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, or 2004 and set forth the 15 reasoning of the appeals officer . 16 On or about February 12, 2008, the appeals 17 office issued the subject notice of determination . 18 Enclosed with the notice of determination wa s 19 an audit statement on Form 3610 which states as follows : 20 "It was determined that the requesting spouse, Milou d 21 Tarif, Petitioner, is not entitled to any innocent spouse 22 relief, therefore, the entire liability for tax, penalty 23 and interest will remain joint . " 24 "Note, for all but 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 25 2004, there was no liability in existence at the time Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 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 6 that the taxpayer requested innocent spouse relief . " he basis for the above determination is se t forth in a document entitled, ."Appeals Case Memorandum" , referred to herein as appeals memo . . According to that document, the appeal s office determined that Petitioner was not entitled t o relief from joint and several liability for 1999 unde r Section 6015(b), (c), and (f) . As to relief unde r Section 6015(b), the appeals memo explains tha t Petitioner had not established that in signing the retur n he did not know or have reason to know that th e Intervenor's children were claimed on the return a s dependents . As to relief under Section 6015(c), th e appeals memo explains that, "if the RS,[PPetitioner] know s about the item under Section 6015(b), he woul d consequently be held to have actual knowledge unde r Section 6015° and with that criteria not met, no relie f would be available under Section 6015(c) . " As to relief under Section 6015(f), th e appeals memo explains that Petitioner had not made a request for relief within two years after the date of th e first collection activity, as required by Rev . Proc . 2003-61, 4 . 0 1 . The. appeals memo then considered whethe r Heritage Reporting . Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 1 Petitioner was entitled to relief under Section 6015(f) 2 for 2001, 2002,, 2003, and 2004 . 3 As to 2001, the appeals memo explains tha t 4 Petitioner is not entitled to relief because hi s 5 application for relief was not made within two year s 6 after the date of the first collection activity, as 7 required by Rev . Proc . 2003-61, Section 4 .01 . 8 As to 2002, 2003, and 2004, the appeals memo 9 concluded that Petitioner is not entitled to relief .for 10 each of those years because "there were important factors 11 that required additional information that wa neve r 12 provided ." The appeals memo points ou "C nferenc e 13 dates were scheduled with the taxpayer and his attorney, 14 and each time, they were canceled . Additional time was 15 granted and the taxpayer never pursued his appeal . " 16 "Therefore, a decision must be reached to 17 deny relief in full for lack of adequate information upon 18 which to base a determination of relief ." E644D QLILOrE-1 19 For example, the appeals memo points out that 20 no information was provided by Petitioner regarding 21 whether he had no knowledge or reason to know that th e 2 2 23 non-requesting spouse had not paid the income ta x liability, and no information was provided by Petitione r 24 to show that he would suffer economic hardship if relie f 25 was not granted to him . See Rev . Proc . 2003-61, Section Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 8 4 .02 . There are other points as to which th e appeals memo noted that Petitioner has not presente d information . At trial, . Petitioner's testimony was vague , unsubstantiated, confused, and confusing . Suffice it t o say there is nothing in the record of this case tha t causes me to question the reasonableness of th e determination set forth in the Notice of Determination . In fact, Petitioner's testimony at tria l suggested that he was living in the same household wit h the Intervenor during 1999 . This fact means that he i s not eligible to elect relief under Section 601 © for 1999- because he did not meet the requirements of Sectio n 6015(c) (3) (A) (I) (II) . Similarly, the Intervenor's testimony a t trial about the signing of the couple's tax return s suggests that Petitioner had knowledge or reason to kno w that the Intervenor would not pay the entire income ta x liability . See Rev . Proc . 2003-61, Section 4 .02 . Accordingly, we hereby sustain theaction o f the appeals office in determining that Petitioner is no t entitled to relief under Section 6015 for tax years 1999 , 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 . In order .to .give effect to the foregoing, a n Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9 1 order will be issued sustaining the Notice o f 2 Determination Concerning Your Request for Relief From 3 Joint and Several Liability under Section 6015 issued to 4 Petitioner on February 21, 2008, for 1996, 1998, 1999 , 5 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 and further sustaining 6 the Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action s 7 Under Section 6330 issued to Petitioner on February 21 , 8 2008 for 2003 and 2004 . 9 This conclude the Court's oral findings of 10 fact and opinion in this case . 11 (Whereupon, at 2 :47 p .m ., the bench opinion 12 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 13 14 15 16 / / 17 // 1 8 19 20 // 2 1 22 // 23 // 24 // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888