- 9 -
due legally enforceable debt” to such agency, to reduce the
amount of any “overpayment” payable to the person by the amount
of such debt and pay this amount to the agency. The intercept
takes precedence over petitioner’s direction that the overpayment
for 2001 be credited against his tax liability for 2002. See
sec. 6402(d)(2); sec. 301.6402-6(g)(3), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Pursuant to section 6402(f), this Court lacks jurisdiction to
restrain or review any reduction made by the Secretary under
section 6402(d). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider
petitioner’s claim that the Treasury Department improperly paid
over the $1,738 to DOE. See Wooten v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2003-113.
On his Form 1040A, petitioner included $1,725 of the $1,738
offset amount, along with $531 of Federal income tax withheld, in
claiming a $2,256 overpayment. In the notice of deficiency,
respondent increased petitioner’s deficiency by $2,256, with an
explanation that this adjustment reflected the disallowance of an
additional child tax credit. The parties have stipulated,
however, that petitioner claimed no additional child tax credit
for 2002. We treat this stipulation as a concession by
respondent that the notice of deficiency erred by increasing
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011