- 13 -
received a refund, but she has not; (b) the taxpayer in Choate
was not granted relief under section 6015(c), but she was;
(c) jurisdiction was at issue in Choate but not here; (d) the
taxpayer in Choate argued that his refund claim for section 6015
relief was an amendment to a prior claim, but petitioner does not
so contend; (e) the taxpayer and his spouse in Choate were
divorced whereas petitioner was widowed; and (f) the taxpayer in
Choate tried to mix business activities of his former wife with
unrelated capital losses on real estate whereas petitioner’s sole
issue and reason for her refund claim is that her husband was
solely responsible for the tax. We disagree that any of these
differences causes petitioner’s refund claim under section
6015(f) to relate back to Kohl’s February 5, 1996, letter or the
other letters sent before September 5, 1997, discussed above.
See United States v. Andrews, supra.
Petitioner wrote to respondent on December 19, 1999, and
March 1, 2001, to appeal the denial of her request for refund
under section 6015(f). These letters are no more a timely refund
claim than was petitioner’s request for relief under section
6015(f).
Petitioner relies on Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. at
162. The taxpayer in Washington wrote a letter to a revenue
officer on July 15, 1998, stating that the 1989 tax liability was
attributable to her former husband and that garnishment of her
wages would cause her financial hardship, and requesting that her
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011