Angela Rae Zachry, Petitioner, and Curtis Carlin, Intervenor - Page 5

                                        - 4 -                                         
          imperfect, and an amended petition was never filed, as ordered by           
          the Court, the case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.2                
               Petitioner and intervenor separated during 1998.  On May 1,            
          2000, their divorce became final.  In the divorce agreement,                
          intervenor acknowledged receiving $191,000 from his mother’s                
          estate, of which only $12,000 remained.  Petitioner and                     
          intervenor agreed that petitioner would be responsible for one-             
          third of the tax liability while intervenor would be responsible            
          for the remaining two-thirds.                                               
               On December 4, 2002, respondent issued a Final Notice of               
          Intent to Levy to petitioner.  On December 19, 2002, respondent             
          filed a Notice of Federal Tax Lien against petitioner.                      
          Respondent then issued the Notice of Federal Tax Lien to                    
          petitioner on December 24, 2002.  Petitioner thereafter filed a             
          timely Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing,            
          on December 19, 2002.  Petitioner raised the innocent spouse                
          issue as her sole defense at the subsequent hearing before an IRS           
          settlement officer.  On December 16, 2003, the settlement officer           
          issued a Notice of Determination sustaining the lien and levy and           
          denying petitioner’s request for relief from joint liability.               

               2The parties stipulated that “Petitioner did not petition              
          the Tax Court for a redetermination for the deficiency asserted             
          by respondent for the taxable year 1996.”  Petitioner did in fact           
          petition this Court; however, since the petition was dismissed              
          for lack of jurisdiction, the stipulation is technically correct.           
          Petitioner, moreover, does not challenge the underlying                     
          deficiency but only seeks relief from joint liability.                      




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011