This argument avails George P. Manzolillo and Lucy P. Manzolillo, T. C. Memo. 2022-107, filed 10/24/22 nought.

George and Lucy got caught in the toils of the newlywed APTC.

I’ve avoided any comment that savors in any way of politics in this my blog. But the temptation that arises when the Affordable Care Act swims into my ken is nearly overwhelming. I’ll resist yet again, making my views known elsewhere.

George and Lucy got married during year at issue. They bought health insurance via the FL marketplace and got the Advance Premium Tax Credit. But when they filed their MFJ, their Form 8962 reconciler misstated the APTC they actually received, and George and Lucy never filled out Part V.

IRS, probably just as confused as George and Lucy (and maybe as confused as you and I), first froze and then unfroze their refund. Thereafter IRS audited their return, and issued a SNOD which ignored the newlywed calculation. George and Lucy petitioned timely, but didn’t mention the newlywed calculation for a year thereafter. When they did so, IRS recalculated the deficiency. And put four (count ’em, four) IRS attorneys on this case.

George and Lucy claim the unfrozen refund bars the SNOD, even in the reduced amount.

Ch J Kathleen (“TBS = The Big Shillelagh”) Kerrigan rejects.

“Petitioners assert that respondent is precluded from increasing their tax liability because they received a refund for [year at issue]. Their position is inconsistent with our caselaw.” T. C. Memo. 2022-107, at p. 4.

“Somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent” follow. You can read all of it at T. C. Memo. 2022-107, at pp. 4-5.

Whatever your views on the wisdom or otherwise of dealing thus with payment for healthcare, so long as it remains it will furnish a fertile field for errors.

Please spare my comments section from philippics one way or the other.