Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

126 T.C. 1 (2006)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

United States Tax Court
126 T.C. 1 (2006)

Facts

In 1997, the United States Tax Court entered a decision finding that Llwellyn Greene-Thapedi (plaintiff) underpaid her 1992 taxes. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (defendant) sent Greene-Thapedi a notice of balance due, which Greene-Thapedi alleged never to have received. Incidentally, Greene-Thapedi overpaid her 1999 taxes. In 2001, the IRS sent Greene-Thapedi a notice of intent to levy as part of its effort to collect the outstanding balance on her 1992 taxes. The IRS then sent Greene-Thapedi a notice of determination sustaining the proposed levy. Greene-Thapedi filed a petition with the United States Tax Court under § 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code (code) challenging the determination. Sometime after Greene-Thapedi filed her petition, the IRS used Greene-Thapedi’s overpayment on her 1999 taxes to offset her 1992 liability. This offset satisfied the 1992 liability, and the IRS filed a motion for partial summary judgment with the Tax Court. Greene-Thapedi learned of the offset from the IRS’s motion. Greene-Thapedi then filed motions asking to add to her petition the issue of her 1999 tax liability. Greene-Thapedi also sued the federal government in district court, seeking a refund of her 1999 overpayment. The district court stayed its proceedings pending the resolution of the Tax Court proceedings, which the district court believed would resolve crucial factual issues concerning the propriety of granting a refund. The IRS argued to the Tax Court that, because Greene-Thapedi’s 1992 liability had been covered by the offset, any dispute over the collection of that liability was moot. Accordingly, the IRS argued, the Tax Court no longer had jurisdiction over Greene-Thapedi’s petition under § 6330.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Thornton, J.)

Concurrence (Colvin, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership