Teri Geisen Rooks - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         
          February 28, 2002.3  Petitioner’s 1992 nonmaster file transcript            
          also shows that respondent essentially had granted some form of             
          section 6015 relief to petitioner.  Respondent allocated $3,211             
          of the tax (approximately 45.5 percent) and $374.47 of the                  
          addition to tax (45.5 percent) for 1992 to petitioner.  Starting            
          with June 1993, respondent assessed interest on these amounts               
          quarterly.  On April 15, 1999, respondent applied $1,921.62 of              
          petitioner’s 1998 overpayment to reduce the balance of the tax              
          allocated to petitioner.4  On April 15, 2000, respondent applied            
          $1,998.12 of petitioner’s 1999 overpayment to reduce the balance            
          of the tax allocated to petitioner.  Respondent also applied                
          $515.29 of petitioner’s 1999 overpayment to reduce the balance of           
          the addition to tax allocated to petitioner.                                
               On February 14, 2002, respondent mailed petitioner a notice            
          of determination concerning your request for relief from joint              
          and several liability under section 6015 (notice of                         
          determination).  Respondent determined that petitioner was                  
          eligible for relief pursuant to section 6015(f) of $3,5855 for              


               3  It is unclear why the transcript shows the amount                   
          petitioner’s balance will be as of Feb. 28, 2002, rather than as            
          of the date the transcript was printed.                                     
               4  Respondent applied the remainder of petitioner’s 1998               
          overpayment ($949.38) to petitioner’s outstanding employment tax            
          liabilities.                                                                
               5  The similarity of numerical figures present in this case            
          appears to be no more than coincidence.                                     





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011