Helena Anne Phillipson - Page 6

                                        - 5 -                                         
          income that was reported on the 2001 joint return, nor was she              
          entitled to any other relief except section 6015(c).2                       
               Petitioner argues that she is entitled to a refund because             
          a revenue agent represented to her that she would be entitled to            
          a refund of all moneys paid on the deficiency, if she were                  
          granted relief from joint liability.  Any advice or                         
          representation made to petitioner by an agent or representative             
          of the IRS does not entitle petitioner to a credit or refund of             
          taxes paid on the assessment if the relief was granted under                
          section 6015(c).  The law is well settled that the Commissioner             
          is not estopped and is not bound by erroneous acts,                         
          representations, or omissions of his agents.  Authoritative tax             
          law is contained in statutes, regulations, and judicial                     
          decisions.  Zimmerman v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 367, 371 (1978),             
          affd. without published opinion 614 F.2d 1294 (2d Cir. 1979);               
          Green v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 456, 458 (1972).  Representations            
          made by an agent do not carry the weight of law, and section                
          6015(g)(3) clearly provides that relief granted under section               
          6015(c) does not allow the taxpayer a refund or credit for                  
          payments made on the deficiency.  Respondent, therefore, is                 
          sustained on this issue.                                                    


               2Petitioner would be eligible for relief under sec. 6015(f)            
          only if it were shown that, contrary to respondent’s                        
          determination, petitioner is not entitled to relief under sec.              
          6015(c).  Sec. 6015(f)(2).                                                  





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011