Marci L. and Carl C. Voigt - Page 3

                                        - 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