- 14 -
The House conference report indicates that the reason for
the 2000 technical correction was as follows:
Allowance of refunds.--The current placement in
the statute * * * may inappropriately suggest that the
provision applies only to the United States Tax Court,
whereas it was intended to apply administratively and
in all courts. The bill clarifies this by moving the
provision to its own subsection. [H. Conf. Rept. 106-
1033, at 1023 (2000), 2000-3 C.B. 304, 353.]
Accordingly, the original intent of section 6015(e)(3) remains
useful for our purposes. In that regard, the House report’s
initial explanation of the refund provisions in section 6015 is
pertinent: “The Tax Court may order refunds as appropriate where
it determines the spouse qualifies for relief and an overpayment
exists as a result of the innocent spouse qualifying for such
relief.” H. Rept. 105-364 (Part 1), supra at 61, 1998-3 C.B. at
433.
Similar to the language modifying “determination” in the
current version of section 6015(e), this Court’s authority under
section 6015(g)(1) to refund an overpayment flows from our
“determination” of relief from joint and several tax liability.
5. “[N]otwithstanding any other law or rule of law”
Respondent argues that pursuant to section 6321, a lien
attaches to the entire amount of the Ordlocks’ community
property, and thus, no refund of community property can be
granted. The Federal tax lien statute does not create property
rights but merely imposes consequences, Federally defined, to
rights created under State law. United States v. Craft, 535 U.S.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011