- 53 -
and (g) to disregard community property laws indicates Congress’s
intent to treat taxpayers in community property jurisdictions and
common law jurisdictions the same.
In Washington v. Commissioner, supra at 159, the Court noted
that “section 6015(g) is very specific with respect to the
limitations placed on a refund”. As in Washington, petitioner’s
relief should not be limited merely to relief from joint and
several liability as respondent contends. Accordingly, I would
conclude that community property laws are disregarded in
determining the amount of petitioner’s refund pursuant to section
6015(g).
II. Amount of Petitioner’s Refund
If, in a community property State, an electing spouse who is
entitled to section 6015(b) or (f) relief has made payments
towards the understatement/underpayment attributable to the
nonelecting spouse, the electing spouse is entitled to a refund
of the amounts applied to the understatement or underpayment
attributable to the nonelecting spouse and paid by the electing
spouse without regard to community property laws.
This is how the refund was calculated in Washington. In
Washington, the taxpayer was employed as a Federal purchasing
agent. Washington v. Commissioner, supra at 139. The taxpayer’s
spouse was a self-employed carpenter who did not pay
self-employment taxes. Id. The taxpayer’s wages were garnished,
Page: Previous 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011