- 7 -
that, pursuant to a levy issued to Anthony Arcodia, Jr. (Mr.
Arcodia), an attorney who was holding in escrow the proceeds of
the sale of the former residence of petitioner and the inter-
venor, Mr. Arcodia paid on April 27, 2006, the liability for tax
with respect to, inter alia, each of petitioner’s taxable years
1998 and 2002. Although petitioner makes various claims in
petitioner’s response to the Court’s Order that that levy was
unlawful, the fact remains that there was no liability for tax
for petitioner’s taxable year 1998 or her taxable year 2002 that
remained unpaid on or after December 20, 2006, the date of the
enactment of the Act.2
We hold that the amendment to section 6015(e)(1) that the
Act made does not apply in the instant case. We further hold
that we do not have jurisdiction over the instant case to deter-
mine whether petitioner is entitled to relief under section
6015(f) where no deficiency has been asserted with respect to
petitioner’s taxable year 1998 or her taxable year 2002. Bill-
ings v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 7 (2006).
2Assuming arguendo (1) that we had the authority in the
instant case to determine whether the levy issued to Mr. Arcodia
was valid and (2) that we were to determine that that levy was
invalid, the fact nonetheless remains that there was no liability
for tax for petitioner’s taxable year 1998 or her taxable year
2002 that remained unpaid on or after Dec. 20, 2006, the date of
the enactment of the Act. That would be true even if petitioner
were entitled to a refund of the amount that Mr. Arcodia paid on
Apr. 27, 2006, with respect to the tax liability for each of
those years.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007