Attorney-at-Law

WITHHELD AND WITHHELD

In Uncategorized on 03/16/2017 at 14:25

Tax Court is sometimes more about what the Court lacks than what it has.

Joanna Jessica McKenna, Docket No. 6935-14S, filed 3/16/17, says she had excess withholding. Judge Kerrigan says she can’t decide that.

JJ McK had her withholding on her return adjusted by IRS. After the adjustment, concessions and the trial, it turns out JJ McK neither owed tax nor was due a refund.

JJ McK says IRS adjusted her withholding improperly.

Judge Kerrigan: “The Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the amount of federal income tax withheld, because under section 6211 a deficiency is determined without regard to the amount of tax withheld on a taxpayer’s income. Redcay v. Commissioner, 12 T.C. 806, 809-810 (1949), section 301.6211-1(b), Proced. & Admin. Regs. The Court would only have jurisdiction if petitioner had overpaid her 2011 Federal income taxes, and she did not. See section 6512 (b).” Order, at pp. 4-5.

Judge Kerrigan orders a 155 beancount, but exactly why there needs to be dueling computations, if withholding is off the table and JJ McK neither owes tax nor gets a refund, is beyond me.

So we have the anomaly where JJ McK may have been overwithheld above what IRS adjusted, but her only recourse would be a claim for refund followed by a suit in USDC or USCFC. And there aren’t any small-claimers there.

Time to fix Section 6211?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: