TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Roxanne M. Toppi
Docket Number: 6808-05
Judge: Wells
Opinion Type: memo
Filed: 08/29/2006
Pages: 8

RECORD ED I -A-111-1 SERVICE CA L. STET . 1 !J~ TILES T .C . Memo . 2006-18 2 UNITED STATES TAX COUR T ROXANNE M . TOPPI, Petitioner v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Responden t Docket No . 6808-05 . Fi1.ed August 29, 2006 . Roxanne,M . Toppi, pro se . Jason Kuratnick , for respondent . ' MEMORANDUM OPINION WELLS, Judge : Petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination denying her request for relief pursuant to section 6015(f) regarding taxable years 1995 through 2001 . The threshold issue we must decide is whether the Court has jurisdiction ove r the instant case . SERVE4) AUG 2 9 2006 2 - Backgroun d Some of the facts and certain exhibits have been stipulated . The .parties' stipulations of fact are incorporated in thi s ' I r Opinion by reference! At the time of filing the petition, __ :petitioner resided in Franklinville, New 'Jersey . Petitioner and David J . Iroppi (Mr . Toppi) were married on . May 24, 1986, and divorced on June 11, 2002 . Except for 5 years following the birth of their son, petitioner worked as a receptionist-for several different employers while Mr . Topp i tried to establish a practice as a chiropractor . Petitioner wa s I not involved with Mr( Toppi's chiropractic practice . During 1994 or 1995, when petitioner's son was 5 years. old, Mr . Toppi approached petitioner and askediher to return to work because his "business was in trouble . " Petitioner and Mr . Toppi's mail was"sent to their home address in Franklinvlle, N .J . Petitioner regularly, but not always, opened and read the mail . At approximately the same tim e that Mr . Toppi asked petitioner to return to work, petitioner discovered that Mr . Toppi had failed to pay numerous household bills . Petitioner and Mr . Toppi opened a joint checking account from which petitioner began Ito pay household bills . Petitioner continued to pay household bills from the joint checking account until she and Mr . Toppi divorced . - 3 - Petitioner and Mr . Toppi's :tax difficulties began around th e time petitioner returned to work . On several occasions Mr . Toppi told petitioner that they should file for an extension to file their joint tax return because he did not have enough money to pay the taxes . Petitioner and Mr . Toppi .requested an extension from April 15 until August 15, 1995 to file their 1994 tax return . On August 21, 1995, respondent received petitioner and Mr . Toppi's joint 1994 income tax return reporting a tax liability in the amount of $8,515 and a,withholding credit in the amount of $598 . In order to satisfy their 1994 tax liability petitioner and Mr . Toppi made monthly payments from June 5, 1996 through March 6, 1998 . The final payment on March 6, 1998 , satisfied petitioner and Mr . Toppi's tax liability for 1994 including additions to tax and statutory, interest . On April 15, 1996, respondent received petitioner and Mr . Toppi's joint 1995 tax return reporting a tax liability in the amount of $17,117 and a withholding credit in the amount of $1,332 . In order to satisfy their 1995 tax liability, petitioner and Mr . Toppi made monthly payments from March 6, 1998, through July 14, 2003 . The final payment on July 14, 2003, satisfied all of petitioner and Mr . .Toppi's tax liability for 1995 includin g additions to tax and statutory interest . Petitioner and Mr . Toppi requested an extension from April 15 until August 15, 1997, to file their joint 1996 tax return and subsequently requested another extension to file until October 15 ; 1997 . On October 20, 1997, respondent received petitioner and Mr . Toppi's joint 1996 tax return reporting a ta x liability of $15,813 and a withlolding credit-in the amount o f $1,253 . The withholding credi t was attributable to petitioner . On June 28, 1999, respondent' sent petitioner and Mr . Toppi a Notice of Intent to Levy becausell they had defaulted on their installment agreement for taxable year 1996 . Petitioner and Mr . Toppi's 1996 tax liability, including' additions to tax and statutory interest was fully satisfied by February 14, 2006 . The only other payment attributable to petitioner was an offset of a $400 overpayment from petitioner's 2002 taxable year . Petitioner and Mr . Toppi requested an extension from April 15 until August 15, 1998, to file their joint 1997 tax return .' Despite receiving an extension, . petitioner and Mr . Toppi filed their return 1 .year later on July 30, 1999, reporting a tax liability in the amount of $10,200 and a withholding credit i n the amount of $1,045 The withholding credit was attributable t o petitioner ., No other payments have been made on petitioner and Mr . Toppi's 1997 tax liability except for one payment of $60 0 made by Mr . Toppi . On August 2, 1999, petitioner and Mr . Toppi untimely file d their joint 1998 tax return'rep rting a tax liability in the amount of $8,513 .29 and withholding credit in the amount of 5 $2,050 .03, of which $389 was attributable to petitioner . Petitioner and Mr . Toppi have not made any further payments on their 1998 tax liability . On October 22, 2000, petitioner and ;Mr . .Toppi untimely filed their joint 1999 tax return reporting a tax liability in th e amount of $7,437 .52 and a withholding credit in the amount of $4,904 .49, . of which $1,884 was attributable,to petitioner . Petitioner and Mr . Toppi have not made any further payments against their 1999 tax liabilities . ' On August 3, 2001, petitioner and Mt . Toppi signed a Form 900, Tax Collection Waiver, extending the period of limitations for collection of their 1996, 1997, 1998 ; and 1999 tax . liabilities . On June 25, 2004, respondent received petitioner's Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief, and Form 12510, Questionnaire for Requesting Spouse, for,tax years 1995 through 2001 .' On December 8, 2004, respondent's Appeals officer sent petitioner a letter requesting any additional information that petitioner wanted respondent to consider .in determining whether petitioner was entitled to section 6015(f) relief for the year s in issue . On January 27, 2005, respondent's Appeals Office sen t petitioner a Notice of Determination denying petitioner's reques t 'The record does not demonstrate that petitioner and Mr . Toppi have any tax liabilities for 2000 and 2001 . We do not need to address this because, for reasons explained below, we hold that we do not have jurisdiction over the instant case . 6 - for relief pursuant to section 6015 ( f) for taxable years 19 .95 through 2061 . Petitioner timely petitioned this Court . Discussion Respondent con t ends that we do not have jurisdiction . over the instant case . In Ewing V . Commissioner , 118 T .C . 494 ( 2002) , revd . 439 F .3d 1009 (9th Cir . . 2006), we held that section 6015(e ) gave us jurisdiction to review section 6015 ( f) petitions for f relief where the Commissioner had not asserted a deficiency . The I Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed our decision in Ewing , holding that the Tax Court lack s jurisdiction to review section 6015 ( f) determinations in a cas e where the Commissioner has not asserted deficiency . Commissioner v . Ewing , 439 F .3d 1009, 1012- 14 (9th Cir . 2006 ) . 2 We revisited the issue of our jurisdiction in section 6015 ( f) cases where the Commissioner has not asserted a deficiency and hell, in Billi nI gs V . Commissioner , 127 T .C . (2006 ), that we do not have jurisdiction to review section 6015 ( f) cases where the Commissioner has knot asserted a deficiency : Accordihgly, we no longer follow our decision i n Ewing v . Commissioner , supra . Because the Commissioner did not assert a deficiency in the 1 instant case , we are bound in the instant case to follow our decision in Billings v . Commissioner ., supra . We therefore hol d 2The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreed with .the position of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Bartman v . Commissioner , 4461 F .3d 785 ( 8th Cir . 2006) . (cid:127) - 7 - that we lack jurisdiction over the instant case . ; Accordingly, we do not reach the issue of whether petitioner is . entitled to relief pursuant to section 6015(f) . To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entere d for respondent . 3We note that Senators Feinstein and :Kyl have recently introduced S . 3523, 109th Cong ., 2d Sess ., sec . 1 (2006), that would, if enacted, clarify that the Court has jurisdiction under sec . 6015 ( e) to review all claims for relief under sec . 6015(f) . See also 152 Cong . Rec . S5962 (daily . ed .!June 15 , 2006 ) ( Senator Feinstein stating : "this bill clarifies the statute ' s original intent"). I I l