                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2008-43



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                JOAN B. SINGLETON, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 256-05S.               Filed April 23, 2008.



     Joan B. Singleton, pro se.

     John F. Driscoll, for respondent.


     CARLUZZO, Special Trial Judge:   This section 6330(d)1 case

was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463.    Pursuant

to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable

by any other court, and this opinion shall not be cited as

precedent for any other case.



     1
       Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the
relevant period.
                                - 2 -

     “Bad things happen if you fail to pay federal income taxes

when due.”    Hinck v. United States, 550 U.S. ___, ___, 127 S. Ct.

2011, 2013 (2007).   Petitioner failed to pay her 1991 Federal

income tax when due.   Her Federal income tax return for that year

was not filed until August 3, 1995, and the tax liability

reported on that return was neither previously paid nor paid with

the return.   Because she failed timely to file Federal income tax

returns, or pay her Federal income tax liabilities for the years

1990, 1992, and 1993 as well, the things that happened went from

bad to worse.2

                             Background

     The Federal income tax liability reported on petitioner’s

1991 return is $772, which consists entirely of the tax imposed

on her self-employment income for that year.   See sec. 1401.


     2
       Petitioner’s filing history is hardly exemplary. Her
Federal income tax returns for 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996,
1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 were all filed late. She
overpaid her income tax for some of those years and underpaid her
tax for others. Her expectations as to how the overpayments from
certain years should be treated were not consistent with the
manner in which respondent, pursuant to sec. 6402(a), actually
treated those overpayments.
     At the same time that respondent was attempting to collect
petitioner’s 1991 tax liability, respondent was attempting to
collect her outstanding tax liabilities for other years as well.
This situation caused numerous complications, misunderstandings,
and disagreements between petitioner and respondent over matters
that otherwise should have been easily resolved. The petition
references the years “1990-1993, 1996” and describes credits from
overpayments from later years as improperly applied to one or
more of these years. In response to respondent’s jurisdictional
motion, so much of this case as relates to any year other than
1991 has been previously dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
                                 - 3 -

When her 1991 return was processed in September 1995, that amount

was assessed, along with various additions to tax and interest.

Over the years, additional amounts of penalties and interest

accrued, and an amount recovered by levy,3 as well as an

overpayment from another period were credited against

petitioner’s 1991 account.    As of October 13, 2003, petitioner’s

1991 unpaid tax liability, including related amounts, totaled

$842.23.4

     In correspondence with respondent, petitioner took the

position that respondent should credit the $1,122.87 refund

claimed on her 1990 return, which she also filed on August 3,

1995, against her outstanding 1991 tax liability.    Petitioner’s

1990 return is not in the record.    According to the stipulation

of facts, her 1990 return shows no income tax liability, and

the refund claimed on that return is attributable entirely to

income tax withholdings.

     In correspondence between petitioner and respondent during

2003, petitioner was advised that the allowance of any credit

from 1990 was barred by the statute of limitations.    See sec.

6511.    Petitioner disagreed.   She failed or refused to make any


     3
       The levy, made in 1997, preceded the effective date of
sec. 6330.
     4
       The computation of this amount was provided to petitioner
by respondent in a letter, the details of which can fully be
appreciated only if read. The letter is part of a supplement to
petitioner’s objection to respondent’s jurisdictional motion.
                                - 4 -

additional payments towards her 1991 tax liability, which, of

course, invited the accrual of additional interest and penalties.

     In a notice dated February 25, 2004, petitioner was notified

of respondent’s intent to levy in order to collect her

outstanding 1991 Federal income tax liability.     That notice also

advised petitioner of her right to request an administrative

hearing in order to challenge respondent’s proposed collection

action, which she did.   See sec. 6330.    At the administrative

hearing, petitioner once again claimed she owed nothing for

1991 because she was entitled to a credit for the refund of

the overpayment shown on her 1990 return.     Once again, she was

advised that the allowance of any credit from 1990 was barred by

the statute of limitations.    As an alternative to the proposed

levy, petitioner was offered an installment agreement, but she

did not respond to the offer.

     In a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s)

Under Sections 6320 and/or 6330, dated December 3, 2004,

respondent determined that the “proposal to issue a tax levy to

collect [1991] unpaid taxes is appropriate”.     Petitioner, who is

an attorney, timely petitioned this Court in response to that

notice.   She was living in Alabama at the time.

                              Discussion

     In proceedings such as this, in addition to issues not

raised here or during the administrative hearing, a taxpayer may
                               - 5 -

challenge the existence or the amount of the underlying liability

to which the proposed collection action relates if the taxpayer

did not receive a notice of deficiency or otherwise have an

opportunity to challenge that liability.   Sec. 6330(c)(2).   A

taxpayer’s claim to have paid an income tax liability arising

from an otherwise unchallenged assessment can be viewed as a

challenge to the existence or the amount of that liability within

the meaning of section 6330.   Boyd v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 127,

131 (2001).   In such situations, we review de novo the taxpayer’s

claim to have fully or partially paid the underlying liability.

Id.

      Our review of petitioner’s claim starts with respondent’s

records.   Those records clearly demonstrate that petitioner has

an outstanding 1991 Federal income tax liability.   According to

petitioner, that outstanding liability would be reduced, if not

completely eliminated, if she were given credit for the refund

claimed on her untimely filed 1990 return.   Respondent’s records

suggest that petitioner’s point is well made and confirm that her

outstanding 1991 tax liability does not take into account any

credit from a 1990 overpayment of tax.

      Petitioner’s entitlement to the relief she seeks in this

proceeding depends upon whether she is entitled to a refund for

1990, and if so, whether respondent is obligated to credit that

refund against her 1991 liability.
                               - 6 -

     Respondent supports his failure or refusal to offset all or

any portion of petitioner’s 1991 tax liability by the allowance

of any credit from 1990 upon the ground that the period of

limitations for claiming the refund shown on petitioner’s 1990

return had expired before her 1990 return, on which she made the

refund claim was filed.   See sec. 6511; Commissioner v. Lundy,

516 U.S. 235 (1996).   Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that

her refund claim made on her 1990 return was timely.   For the

following reasons, we find it inappropriate to resolve this

issue.

     In Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1 (2006), we

held that the Court lacks refund jurisdiction in section 6330(d)

cases, noting that “we do not believe we should assume, without

explicit statutory authority, jurisdiction either to determine

an overpayment or to order a refund or credit of taxes paid”.

Id. at 11.   Our holding in that case is directed towards the

taxpayer’s claim for refund for the same year placed in dispute

in connection with the Commissioner’s proposed collection action.

Because we lack jurisdiction in a section 6330(d) case to

determine a taxpayer’s entitlement to a refund for a year over

which we have jurisdiction, we question whether we are empowered

to determine a taxpayer’s entitlement to a refund for a year over
                               - 7 -

which we have no jurisdiction.5   That question, however, need not

be resolved in this proceeding.

     Even if the parties agreed that petitioner was entitled to a

refund for 1990, she would be in no position to demand that the

refund be applied to her outstanding 1991 tax liability.   If on

her 1990 return she designated the overpayment to be applied to

her 1991 “estimated tax”, because of her outstanding tax

liabilities for other years respondent was not and is not bound

by that election.   See sec. 301.6402-3(a)(5) and (6), Proced. &

Admin. Regs.   On the other hand, if petitioner elected to have

the overpayment of tax shown on that return refunded, that

election is irrevocable.   See sec. 301.6402-3(d), Proced. &

Admin. Regs.

     If petitioner believes that she is entitled to a refund for

overpaid 1990 Federal income tax, then she should exercise

whatever rights she has to pursue her claim for that refund

independent of this proceeding.   See, e.g., sec. 7422.

     Except as discussed, petitioner does not otherwise challenge

the existence or the amount of the underlying liability that

respondent proposes to collect by levy.   Neither does she suggest


     5
       Although not controlling here, see sec. 6214(b), which
provides that the “Tax Court in redetermining a deficiency of
income tax for any taxable year * * * shall consider such facts
with relation to taxes for other years * * * as may be necessary
correctly to redetermine the amount of such deficiency, but in so
doing shall have no jurisdiction to determine whether or not the
tax for any other year * * * has been overpaid or underpaid.”
                                 - 8 -

that respondent’s determination to do so is in any way an abuse

of discretion.   Nothing in the record suggests that the amount of

petitioner’s 1991 tax liability as shown in respondent’s records

has been mistakenly calculated, and nothing in the record

suggests that respondent’s actions in attempting to collect that

liability have failed to comply with the provisions of section

6330.

     It follows respondent may proceed with collection as

proposed in the above-mentioned notice of determination.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                         Decision will be entered

                                 for respondent.
