John and Kristine Wolfgram - Page 3

                                        - 2 -                                         

               Respondent determined a deficiency of $623 in Federal income           
          tax for petitioners’ 2001 tax year.  At trial, respondent                   
          conceded the deficiency.  The issue for decision is whether the             
          Court has jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ arguments that              
          respondent, under section 6402, incorrectly applied an                      
          overpayment of petitioners’ 2001 Federal income taxes toward                
          payment of an indebtedness owing by petitioner John Wolfgram (Mr.           
          Wolfgram) to a Federal agency, and that petitioner Kristine                 
          Wolfgram (Mrs. Wolfgram) is entitled to a refund as an injured              
          spouse under section 301.6402-6(i), Proced. & Admin. Regs.                  
               Some of the facts were stipulated.  Those facts, with the              
          exhibits annexed thereto, are so found and are made part hereof.            
          Petitioners’ legal residence at the time the petition was filed             
          was Fair Oaks, California.  At the time of trial, petitioners               
          were residing at Foresthill, California.                                    
               Petitioners filed a joint Federal income tax return for                
          2001.  On that return, petitioners reported $63,411.38 in wage              
          and salary income, $787.51 in taxable refunds of State and local            
          income taxes, and $2,350 in Schedule C-EZ, Net Profit From                  
          Business, income.  The return showed a tax of $2,861, Federal               
          income tax withholdings of $5,235.66, and an overpayment of                 
          $2,374.66.  Petitioners elected that the entire overpayment be              
          applied to their 2002 estimated tax.  Respondent did not do that.           
          Respondent instead issued a notice of deficiency, determining a             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011