- 4 -
as gross receipts on Schedule C-EZ of their return. The case was
tried solely on petitioners’ contention that 97 percent of the
remaining overpayment ($2,374.66 less the prior refund of
approximately $875.83) should be paid to Mrs. Wolfgram, since 97
percent of the income reported on the return was income earned by
her, and, additionally, petitioners claimed that, even though
they resided in California, which is a community property State,
petitioners had a separation of property agreement under which
all of Mrs. Wolfgram’s income constituted her separate property,
and all of Mr. Wolfgram’s earnings were community property.
This case calls for the review of a reduction of an
overpayment under section 6402(d). Section 6402(f) provides that
no court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to hear any
action, whether legal or equitable, brought to restrain or review
a reduction under section 6402(c), (d), or (e), which applies to
the facts of this case. The Court notes that the flush language
of section 6402(f) states that the prohibition of a court review
does not preclude any legal, equitable, or administrative action
against the Federal agency to which the overpaid taxes were paid.
This Court, therefore, has no jurisdiction to consider the merits
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011