- 7 - Discussion Whether petitioner is entitled to a refund4 under section 6015(g) related to community property assets used to pay Mr. Ordlock’s understatements presents an issue of first impression for this Court.5 Relief from joint and several tax liability for the taxable years in issue is not an issue because respondent has conceded that petitioner is eligible for relief under section 6015(b). I. Is Petitioner Entitled to a Refund? A. The Parties’ Contentions and the Issue Presented Petitioner contends that section 6015(g) is unambiguous and its application entitles her to a refund of community property assets used to pay Mr. Ordlock’s understatements. Respondent argues that petitioner is not entitled to a refund of community property assets. Respondent contends that the “relief” provided to petitioner under section 6015(b) is relief from being held jointly or severally liable for her and Mr. Ordlock’s 1982, 1983, and 1984 joint tax liabilities. Respondent further argues that 4The parties’ filings address neither when the period of limitations under sec. 6511 expires in this case, nor whether petitioner has filed a refund claim within that period. Consequently, we do not discuss these issues. 5This is not the first instance this issue has arisen in Federal tax litigation. See United States v. Stolle, 86 AFTR 2d 5180, 2000-1 USTC par. 50,329 (C.D. Cal. 2000).Page: Previous 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