Lois E. Ordlock - Page 1

                                   126 T.C. No. 4                                     

                               UNITED STATES TAX COURT                                

                           LOIS E. ORDLOCK, Petitioner v.                             
                    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent                      

               Docket No. 17021-02.             Filed January 19, 2006.               

                    P resides in a community property State.  P and H                 
               filed joint tax returns for 1982, 1983, and 1984.  P                   
               and H paid the reported tax liabilities.  Additional                   
               tax liabilities--i.e., understatements--arose that were                
               attributable to erroneous items of H (H’s understate-                  
               ments).  The parties agree that P is entitled to sec.                  
               6015(b), I.R.C., relief for the years in issue and P’s                 
               liability for these years is zero after application of                 
               sec. 6015(b), I.R.C.                                                   
                    After the years at issue until the present, R                     
               applied numerous payments to H’s understatements.  One                 
               payment was from P’s “separate property”, as defined by                
               Cal. Fam. Code sec. 770(a) (West 2004).  All other                     
               payments were from P and H’s “community property”, as                  
               defined under Cal. Fam. Code sec. 760 (West 2004).  P                  
               seeks a refund pursuant to sec. 6015(g), I.R.C., of the                
               payments R applied to H’s understatements made with her                
               separate property and with the community property.  R                  
               does not dispute that P may be entitled to a refund for                

Page:   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011