- 11 -
refunds were being applied against the 1988 liability or what the
remaining balance was. We infer that petitioner either knew or
was content not to know the answers. Only after respondent
issued a wage levy to petitioner’s employer did petitioner act to
satisfy the 1988 liability.
With respect to respondent’s notifications that her 1989 and
1993 refunds were being applied to the 1988 liability, petitioner
argues that respondent’s failure to state the balances due, to
segregate her and Frank’s accounts, and to include her Social
Security number on the notifications constituted “malfeasance” by
respondent in performing his duty to collect taxes.7 Petitioner
concedes on brief, however, that any such failure “does not
legally justify the abatement of interest.” We agree.
On brief, petitioner suggests that the equities should lie
with her, claiming that she was the innocent victim of an abusive
marital situation that unfairly left her holding the bag for the
1988 liability. On reply brief, however, petitioner concedes
that she does not qualify for relief under section 6015. Given
that petitioner has conceded liability for the underlying tax, it
follows that interest properly accrued on that liability for the
7 In fact, as previously noted, petitioner’s Social Security
number did appear on the notices, which expressly refer to
Federal taxes owed on the “secondary social security number”
(i.e., petitioner’s). In any event, respondent’s application of
her 1989 and 1993 refunds to the 1988 liability should have
alerted petitioner that respondent believed she remained liable
on the 1988 liability.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011