- 3 -
deductions they claimed on their 2000 tax return. The parties
agree that, taking into account only these concessions,
petitioners’ 2000 deficiency is $2,396. Petitioners contend,
however, that their tax liability should be reduced to reflect
what they allege to be respondent’s nonpayment of the $896
balance of their 2000 claimed refund.
On June 23, 2003, this case was called for trial from the
calendar for the regularly scheduled session of the U.S. Tax
Court in Boise, Idaho. Counsel for respondent and petitioner
made their appearances and were heard. Counsel for respondent
stated, and petitioner agreed, that “the parties have reached an
agreement as to the amount of the deficiency due” but that
petitioner “wishes still to contest the * * * allocation of
payments from the refund.”2 Counsel for respondent moved the
Court to deny petitioner’s claim for lack of jurisdiction. The
Court ordered respondent to file a written motion within 7 days.
Respondent never filed the written motion as ordered by the
Court. Instead, on July 8, 2003, in a conference call with the
parties and the Court, respondent’s counsel withdrew his oral
2 Petitioner Carl C. Voigt (petitioner) clarified that he
was contesting only whether respondent ever paid the balance of
petitioners’ claimed refund that allegedly remained after
respondent made payment to the State of Idaho to offset
petitioner’s child support obligation, pursuant to sec. 6402(c).
Petitioner stated with regard to the sec. 6402(c) offset: “I’ve
done my research on that. The State of Idaho does show a credit
to previous owed child support for the son listed, sent to them.
That’s not in contention.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011