§6402 — Authority to make credits or refunds

(CCH) 737, 738-739 ("An offset under section 6402 is distinguishable from, and does not constitute, a levy ac- tion.").

296, 300 (2005) ("A levy is distinguishable from an offset."), affd. 451 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2006); Bullock v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-5 ("An offset under section 6402 is distinguishable from,.and does not constitute, a levy action."); Trent v.

Pursuant to section 6512(b)(4), the Court lacks jurisdiction in a deficiency case such as this to review a credit made by the Commissioner under section 6402(a).9 See also Ryals v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 178, 182 (2006); Savage v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 46 (1999). Section 6512(b)(4) does not apply to this case because we do not find in the limited record before us that respondent, in most recently recharacterizing the disputed funds as the payment of income tax rather than estate tax, was credit

However, the Treasury regulations promulgated under section 6402(a) demonstrate that the IRS does not apply the voluntary payment rule to overpayments.

6402, I.R.C., to outstanding tax liabilities of the taxpayer who overpaid, does not apply where our final decision in the same case precludes the existence of the liabilities to which the Commissioner applied the overpayment.

Unlike Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra, to the extent petitioner reported an overpayment, respondent exercised his discretion under section 6402 to offset such overpayment against petitioner's assessed liabilities for 1990 and 1991.

We disagree with the premise ofpetitioners' argument.

Injured spouse relief “involves obtaining a refund of a spouse’s interest in an overpayment that has been offset pursuant to § 6402.” Lawrence A.

However, pursuant to section 6402(a), on April 15, 2015, the IRS applied that overpayment to reduce their 2010 tax liability.

With the application of overpayment credits applied for the years at issue from tax years 2016, 2019, 2020, and 2021 pursuant to section 6402, an outstanding self-reported liability remains for each of the years at issue.

Discussion Pursuant to section 6402, in the event of an overpayment, a taxpayer may recoup the balance of the overpayment--less any outstanding liabilities--in the form of a credit or a refund.

Turner pursuant to section 6402 and section 1.6654-2(e)(5)(ii), Income Tax Regs.) does not constitute - 14 - misappropriation of funds; (d) she filed an individual return and did not establish how any prior abuse by Mr.

Court ofAppeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the Court's holding that since we had not addressed the underpayment of interest, the Commissioner had authority pursuant to section 6402 to reduce the overpayment oftax that we had determined by the amount ofunpaid interest.

Respondent contends that section 6402 provides the Commissioner with authorityto apply overpayment to any outstanding tax liability.

Respondent did not refund the $711 to petitioner, but on that same date, pursuant to section 6402(a), he credited $711 as an offset against petitioner's unpaid 2011 tax liability.

For the reasons explained below, we hold that a portion ofthe account did indeed constitute separate funds ofMs.

We hold that petitioner's argument with respect to respondent's application of credits from the 2004 .and 2005 overpayments to 1997 instead of 1996, raised in her objection to respondent's motion, is without merit .

We hold that petitioner's argument with respect to respondent's application of credits from the 2004 .and 2005 overpayments to 1997 instead of 1996, raised in her objection to respondent's motion, is without merit .

The United States moved to dismiss on the ground that as a matter of law petitioner has no claim for a 1999 overpayment because the credit against the 1999 tax year no longer exists, having been applied against petitioner's outstanding 1992 tax liability pursuant to section 6402(a).

Most of the overpayments underlying petitioner’s claims for additional overpayment interest are interim overpayments that respondent credited against a tax liability of petitioner for a different year and/or a different tax, pursuant to section 6402(a).

- 3 - Background On May 13, 1999, respondent applied, pursuant to section 6402(a), petitioner’s overpayment, relating to 1998, as a credit against a portion of petitioner’s 1989 tax liability and sent petitioner written notification thereof.

In this regard, we observe that the October 21, 2002, notice of determination did not sustain respondent’s proposed levy action because, as of the date of the notice, petitioner’s tax liabilities for the years in issue had been fully paid, principally through the application of setoffs made pursuant to section 6402(a).

First, we may not restrain or prevent respondent from reducing a refund by way of credit or reduction pursuant to section 6402.

3301(b) also added section 6601(f) to clarify the offset provision of section 6402. Section 6601(f) provides: SEC. 6601(f). Satisfaction by Credits.--If any portion of a tax is satisfied by credit of an overpayment, then no interest shall be imposed.under this section on the portion of the tax so satisfied for any period during which, if the credit had not been made, interest would have been allowable with respect to such overpayment. The preceding sentence shall not apply to the extent that sec

Therefore, if a taxpayer owed the Government an underpayment and the Government, in turn, owed the taxpayer an overpayment in an equivalent amount, the amounts could be offset pursuant to section 6402 and no interest would be paid by either party.

4) does not apply to this case because we do not find in the limited record before us that respondent, in most recently recharacterizing the disputed funds as the payment of income tax rather than estate tax, was crediting an overpayment pursuant to section 6402. Nor does section 6512(b)(4) deprive the Court of jurisdiction in essence to review the reversal of the overpayment credit made by respondent in the first place; i.e., respondent had credited to the estate’s estate tax the disputed funds

of $657 against petitioner’s income tax liability for 1988. On April 15, 2000, respondent offset petitioner’s income tax refund for 1999 in the amount of $872 against petitioner’s income tax liability for 1988. 2 Respondent concedes that, subject to sec. 6402, he will refund petitioner $753 and $300 related to her 2000 tax year that respondent offset against petitioner’s tax liability for 1988 on Mar. 12, 2001, and Sept. 17, 2001, respectively. Respondent based this concession on his administrat

iability for another taxable year does not constitute a collection action that is subject to review under sections 6320 or 6330. In particular, the Commissioner’s authority to credit an overpayment to offset any taxpayer’s liability is set forth in section 6402. An offset under section 6402 is distinguishable from, and does not constitute, a levy action. See Belloff v. Commissioner, 996 F.2d 607, 615-616 (2d Cir. 1993) (comparing a levy with a “setoff”); Karara v. United States, 90 AFTR 2d 2002-

(to - 13 - call an offset a “taking tantamount to a levy is disingenuous”); cf. sec. 301.6330-1(g)(2) Q&A-G3, Proced. & Admin. Regs. Respondent properly offset petitioner’s 1994 tax liability by crediting refunds from other years in accordance with section 6402. We hold that respondent did not engage in collection activity in violation of section 6015(e)(1)(B). To take account of respondent’s concession, An appropriate order will be issued.

as an offset against the agreed deficiency for 1993. We hold, however, that we lack jurisdiction in this proceeding to review respondent’s assessment of petitioner’s liabilities for interest and penalties for 1990 and 1991. Our analysis begins with section 6402. Under the general rule of that section, the Commissioner is expressly authorized to credit the amount of an overpayment against any tax liability of the taxpayer. Sec. 6402(a). However, after applying an overpayment against the taxpayer’

2003-61, supra, that a petitioning spouse make a "separate payment" or "provide the funds" used to pay thejoint tax liability in order to be entitled to a refund under section 6015(g)(1), is in accord with section 6402, which requires, inter alia, that in order to obtain a refund, a person must make an overpayment.

We concluded that the IRS had followed all appropriate procedures in filing the notice oftax lien, and we specifically rejected petitioner's argumentthatthe IRS had "improperly offset his income tax refund for tax year 2004 against his outstanding tax liability for tax -4- [*4] year 1991." As we explained; section 6402 ofthe Code explicitly authorizes the IRS "to credit an overpaymentto offset an outstanding income tax liability." Golub II, at 7.

Section 6402 makes this expressly clear, stating: SEC. 6402(a). GENERAL Rule. — In the case of any overpayment, the Secretary, within the applicable period of limitations, may credit the amount of such overpayment, including any interest allowed thereon, against any liability in respect to an internal revenue tax on the part of the person who made

However, respondent credited the overpayment against-petitioner's outstanding 'Federal income tax liability for 2001 pursuant to the section 6402 setoff procedures .

Section 6402 allows the IRS to credit an "overpayment, including any interest allowed thereon, against any liability in respect of an .internal revenue tax on the part of the person who - 11 - made the overpayment" and, subject to certain limitations, to refund any balance to the person . In lieu of a refund, a taxpayer can instruct the IRS to cre

made during the pendency of proceedings for the refund of a divisible tax (e.g., any employment tax). In pertinent part, section 6331(i)(3) (B) provides: "Certain levies. This subsection shall not apply to- -(i) any levy to carry out an offset under section 6402". By reference to the language of section 6331(i)(3)(B), a similar exception·is incorporated into section 6331(k), which (cid:16)04p2rovides that no levy may be made while an offer in compromise is pending or an installment agreement is

etitioner that she was not required to file an income tax return; (4) courts have held that a Form 1040 with zeros in all boxes for income qualified as a tax return; (5) petitioner's 1996 income tax return constitutes a claim for refund pursuant to section 6402; (6) petitioner had zero income in 1996; (7) no statute requires petitioner to make a self-assessment; (8) petitioner's return is not frivolous and is not designed to delay or impede the administration of Federal income tax laws; (9) no I

(defining an offset of an overpayment against a liability pursuant to section 6402 as a 3 We note that petitioner does not question the validity of Rev.

pondent alleges that $85,336.83 in underpayment interest remained unpaid. Respondent states that he subtracted this amount from the $238,847.24 overpayment that we determined, and he applied the $85,336.83 to assessed but unpaid interest pursuant to section 6402. This resulted in the May 13, 2002, refund of $210,467.35, which consisted of $153,510.41 ($238,847.24 minus $85,336.83) plus interest on the $153,510.41. Respondent argues that pursuant to section 6402(a) he is entitled to credit part o

Furthermore, respondent argues that section 6512(b)(4), which provides that the Court has no jurisdiction “to restrain or review any credit or reduction made by the Secretary under section 6402”, deprives the Court of jurisdiction to consider claims for overpayment interest with respect to over-payments that were credited to a taxpayer’s liabilities before the taxpayer filed a petition in this Court.

This, the Court explained, was because it lacked jurisdiction to restrain or review any credit or reduction by the Commissioner under section 6402 (citing section 6512(b)(4) and Savage v.

ourt Rules of Practice and Procedure. On July 18, 2002, the Commissioner published final regulations, pursuant to sec. 6015, that define a collection activity to include “an offset of an overpayment of the requesting spouse against a liability under section 6402”. Sec. 1.6015-5(b)(2)(i), Income Tax Regs. These regulations are applicable to all requests for relief from joint and several liability filed on or after July 18, 2002, and, thus, not applicable to petitioner’s request, which was filed b

Section 6402 and the regulations thereunder govern respondent’s authority to credit income tax overpayments against the estimated income tax for the succeeding taxable year. Respondent’s authority to do so is specifically limited to allowing credits of overpayments for which a claim has been filed within the applicable period of limitations. See se

In this regard, the Installment Agreement expressly authorizes respondent to apply any refund that might otherwise be payable to any outstanding liability covered by the agreement. Here, petitioner made payments pursuant to the Installment Agreement in 1997 that respondent properly treated as payments of estimated tax for 1997. Petitione

In so holding, we are mindful of section 6512(b)(4), which serves to deny jurisdiction to the Court "to restrain or review any credit or reduction made by the Secretary under section 6402." Savage v.

pply any or all of petitioner’s refunds solely against petitioner’s liabilities for the years in issue. Further, pursuant to section 6512(b)(4), this Court is restricted from restraining or reviewing any credit or reduction made by respondent under section 6402. See Savage v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 46 (1999). Therefore, we are without jurisdiction to decide whether respondent improperly credited any overpayments to petitioner’s tax liabilities for years not before the Court. See id. Finally, pet

Under section 6402, the Commissioner is expressly authorized to credit the amount of an overpayment against any tax liability of the taxpayer. See sec. 6402(a). Section 6512(b) generally defines this Court's jurisdiction to determine overpayments. Paragraph (4) of that section serves to deny jurisdiction to this Court "to restrain or review any credit or

- 7 - review any credit or reduction made by the Secretary under section 6402."4 Respondent contends that pursuant to section 6512(b)(4) this Court has no jurisdiction to review the action with regard to the application of the overpayments.

Thus, to the extent petitioners may contend that they are entitled to some - 5 - portion of the $475 overpayment because section 6402 was not applied correctly by respondent, they have not met their burden of proof.

Section 6402 provides: In the case of any overpayment, the Secretary, within the applicable period of limitations, may credit the amount of such overpayment, including any interest allowed thereon, against any liability in respect of an internal revenue tax on the part of the person who made the overpayment and shall, subject to subsections (c) -

Moreover, an offset under section 6402 is not a collection action that is subject to review in this section 6330 proceeding.

Shitrit nonetheless argues that section 6512 grants us jurisdiction to determine an overpayment and that section 6402 equips us with the power to order a refund of that overpayment.

sonal exemption for his wife for tax year 2008. III. Overpayment Under section 6402(a) the IRS is authorized to credit a taxpayer's overpayment against his tax liabilities. We do not havejurisdiction to restrain or review any credit by the IRS under section 6402. Sec. 6512(b)(4); Bocock v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 178 (2006). We do, however, havejurisdiction to determine whether a taxpayerhas made an overpayment oftax and in what amount. Sec. 6512(b)(1). To determine whether there is an overpaymen

Section 6402 allows the Internal Revenue Service to credit an overpayment to "the person who made the overpayment". In the case ofmarried taxpayers filingjointly, "ajoint income tax return does not create new property interests for the husband or the wife in each other's income tax overpayment. * * * [T]he * * * [spouse] having paid the entire amou

a refund claim (generally 3 years after he or she has filed the 8The Internal Revenue Service has defined "collection activities" as the issuance of"a section 6330 notice; an offset ofan overpayment ofthe requesting spouse against a liability under section 6402; the filing ofa suit by the United States against the requesting spouse for the collection ofthejoint tax liability; or the filing ofa claim by the United States in a court proceeding in which the requesting spouse is a party or which inv

It is well-established law that interest is generally taxable as income to the recipient, including interest resulting from a tax refund. See secs. 61(a)(4), 861(a)(1), 871(a)(1)(A); sec. 1.61- 7(a), Income Tax Regs.; see also, e.g., Muir v. Commissioner, B.T.A.M. (P-H) para. 32, 328, at 32-35 (1932) ("[T]he interest upon the over-paymen

at 17; see also Rev.

arising from an overpayment to any tax liability then due arising under the Internal Revenue Code for the same taxpayer. Under section 6512(b)(4), this Court lacksjurisdiction to restrain or review any credit or refund made by the Commissioner under section 6402. See Savage v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 46, 48-49 (1999); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 291, 293-294 (1998); Steinberg v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-311, aff'd, 19 Fed. Appx. 498 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we lack

2003-61, supra, that a petitioning spouse make a "separate payment" or "provide the funds" used to pay thejoint tax liability in order to be entitled to a refund under section 6015(g)(1), is in accord with section 6402, which requires, inter alia, that in order to obtain a refund, a person must make an overpayment.

§ 6402, gives the IRS the discretionary authority to credit tax overpayments to any tax liability. See N. States Power Co. v. United States, 73 F.3d 764, 766-67 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 862, 117 S. Ct. 168, 136 L. Ed. 2d 110 (1996); In re Ryan, 64 F.3d 1516, 1523-24 (11th Cir. 1995) (holding that 26 U.S.C. § 6402 gives the IRS the discret

1996) (quoting Ryan, 64 F.3d at 1523 ("'[Section 6402], plainly gives the IRS the discretion to apply overpayments to any tax liability.'")); Pettibone Corp.

Tlje Court held:tlie case was moot and noted that^an òffsiét urider section 6402 doés dot constitute a levy action and accordingly is not a collection action subjectto review in a section 6330 proceeding.

ndent. See Rule 142(a). Our conclusions, however, are based on a preponderance ofthe evidence, and thus the allocation ofthe burden ofproofis immaterial. See Martin Ice Cream Co. v. Commissioner, 110 T C. 189, 210 n.16 (1998). - 5 - made pursuantto section 6402. Thus, as we have previously held, we.do not have jurisdiction to review an application ofan overpaymentto a prior year. Savage v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 46.(1999). In;addition, after the application ofan overpayment,.the Commissioner is

ers' collection matters in this deficiency proceeding. To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entered for respondent in the amount of the agreed deficiency. 4We note, however, that sec. 301.6402-3 (a) (6) , Proced. & Admin. Regs., in accord with sec. 6402, authorizes the Commissioner to override a taxpayer' s instructions to apply overpayments or credits and to apply them against "any outstanding liability for any tax" . Accordingly, it is questionable whether petitioners would be successful

The Court held the case was moot and noted that an offset under section 6402 does not constitute a levy action and accordingly is not a collection action subject to review in a section 6330 proceeding .

6402 (West 2003) . Moreover, an employee .cannot be discharged for refusing to perform work which would result in a violation of the California Labor Code and where the violation would create a real an d apparent hazard to that employee or to fellow employees . Cal . Lab . Code-sec. 6311 (West 2003) . Petitioner did have tort-based claims agai

of any refund or credit to which the individual is entitled may depend upon other issues arising outside the scope of section 6015, such as whether the overpayment should be reduced by various offsets that the Secretary is authorized to make under section 6402. Accordingly, inasmuch as there can be no determination as to whether an individual is entitled to a refund or credit unless there is first a determination whether the individual has an overpayment, and inasmuch as it cannot be determined

t of any refund or credit to which the individual is entitled may depend upon other issues arising outside the scope of section 6015, such as whether the overpayment should be reduced by various offsets that the Secretary is authorized to make under section 6402. Accordingly, inasmuch as there can be no determination as to whether an individual is entitled to á refund or credit unless there is first a determination whether the individual has an overpayment, and inasmuch as it cannot be determine

The issue for decision is whether the Court has jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ arguments that respondent, under section 6402, incorrectly applied an overpayment of petitioners’ 2001 Federal income taxes toward payment of an indebtedness owing by petitioner John Wolfgram (Mr.

0), and a Las Vegas bankruptcy court held that “Zeroes entered on a Form 1040 constitutes a return.” Cross v. U.S., 91-2 USTC p. 50,318, Banker. L. Rep p. 7404. 5) Please note that my 1996 return also constitutes a claim for refund pursuant to Code Section 6402. - 6 - 6) It should also be noted that I had “zero” income according to the Supreme Court’s definition of income (See Note #1) * * * since I had no earnings in 1996, that would have been taxable as “income” under the Corporation Excise Ta

an income tax return; * * * * * * * 7) It should also be noted that I had “zero” income according to the Supreme Court’s definition of income (See note #1) * * * 8) Please note that my 1997 return also constitutes a claim for refund pursuant to Code Section 6402. 9) I am also putting the I.R.S. on notice that my 1997 tax return and claim for refund does not constitute a “frivolous” return pursuant to Code section 6702. * * * 11) In addition, don’t notify me that the I.R.S. is “changing” my retur

Section 6402 allows the Secretary to credit the amount of an overpayment against any liability in respect of an internal revenue tax on the part of the person who made the overpayment. Such offset does not preclude the Internal Revenue Service from making a later determination or assessment with regard to the overpayment year. Owens v. Commissioner

liable” for. Since no Code Section makes me “liable” for income taxes, this provision notifies me that I do not have to file an income tax return. * * * * * * * 5) Please note, that my 1998 return also constitutes a claim for refund pursuant to Code Section 6402. 6) It should also be noted that I had “zero” income according to the Supreme Court’s definition of income (See Note #1) * * * . 7) I am also putting the IRS on notice that my 1998 tax return and claim for refund does not constitute a “f

After concessions by the parties, the sole issue for decision is whether, under section 6402, respondent properly credited a payment by petitioners to their 1996 tax year instead of 1997 as contended by petitioners.2 Some of the facts were stipulated.

iable” for. Since no Code Section makes me “liable” for income taxes, this provision notifies me that I do not have to file an income tax return. * * * * * * * 7) Please note, that my 1997 return also constitutes a claim for refund pursuant to Code Section 6402. 8) It should also be noted that I had “zero” income according to the Supreme Court’s definition of income * * *. 9) I am also putting the IRS on notice that my 1997 tax return and claim for refund does not constitute a “frivolous” return

ay be "liable" for. Since no Code Section makes me "liable" for income taxes, this provision notifies me that I do not. . have tò file an incòme tak réturn.. 6) Please note, that my 1991 return also constitutes a . claim for refund pursuant to Code Section 6402. 7) It should also be noted that I had "zero" income according to the Supreme Court's definition of income * * * 8) I am also putting the IRS on notice that my 1921 tax return and claim for refund does not constitute a "frivolous" return

ve to file an income tax return; * * * * * * * 7) It should also be noted that I had “zero” income according to The Supreme Court’s definition of income * * * . 8) Please note that my 1997 return also constitutes a claim for refund pursuant to Code Section 6402. 9) I am also putting the IRS on notice that my 1997 tax return and claim or [sic] refund does not constitute a “frivolous” return pursuant to Code Section 6702. * * * * * * * * * * 11) In addition, don’t notify me [t]hat the IRS is “chan

liable” for. Since no Code Section makes me “liable” for income taxes, this provision notifies me that I do not have to file an income tax return. * * * * * * * 6) Please note, that my 1997 return also constitutes a claim for refund pursuant to Code Section 6402. 7) It should also be noted that I had “zero” income ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT’S DEFINITION OF INCOME * * * . 8) With this statement, I am also putting the IRS on notice that my 1997 tax return and claim for refund does not constitu

liable” for. Since no Code Section makes me “liable” for income taxes, this provision notifies me that I do not have to file an income tax return. * * * * * * * 6) Please note, that my 1997 return also constitutes a claim for refund pursuant to Code Section 6402. 7) It should also be noted that I had “zero” income according to the Supreme Court’s definition of income * * * . 8) I am also putting the IRS on notice that my 1997 tax return and claim for refund does not constitute a - 4 - “frivolous

liable” for. Since no Code Section makes me “liable” for income taxes, this provision notifies me that I do not have to file an income tax return; * * * * * * * 5) Please note, that my 1998 return also constitutes a claim for refund pursuant to Code Section 6402. 6) It should also be noted that I had “zero” income according to the Supreme Court’s definition of income * * * . 7) I am also putting the IRS on notice that my 1998 tax return and claim for refund does not constitute a “frivolous” retu

be liable for. Since no Code Section makes me liable for income taxes, this provision notifies me that I do not have to file an income tax return. * * * * * * * 6) Please note that my 1997 return also constitutes a claim for refund pursuant to Code Section 6402. 7) It should also be noted that I had “zero” income according to the Supreme Court’s definition of income * * * 8) I am also putting the IRS on notice that my 1997 tax return and claim for refund does not constitute a “frivolous” return

liable” for. Since no Code Section makes me “liable” for income taxes, this provision notifies me that I do not have to file an income tax return. * * * * * * * 5) Please note, that my 1995 return also constitutes a claim for refund pursuant to Code Section 6402. 6) It should also be noted that I had “zero” income according to the Supreme Court’s definition of income (See Note #1) * * * . 7) I am also putting the IRS on notice that my 1995 tax return and claim for refund does not constitute a “f

liable” for. Since no Code Section makes me “liable” for income taxes, this provision notifies me that I do not have to file an income tax return; * * * * * * * 6) Please note, that my 1997 return also constitutes a claim for refund pursuant to Code Section 6402. 7) It should also be noted that I had “zero” income according to the Supreme Court’s definition of income (See Note #1) * * * . 8) I am also putting the IRS on notice that my 1997 tax return and claim for refund does not constitute a “f

o the extent that petitioner may be seeking to invoke the overpayment jurisdiction of this Court, see sec. 6512(b), it is clear that we have no jurisdiction under that section to restrain or review any credit or reduction made by the Secretary under section 6402. See sec. 6512(b)(4); see also sec. 6402(e), which bars any court of the United States, including this Court, from hearing any action that is commenced to restrain or review a reduction authorized by section 6402(c);7 Columbus v. Commiss

turns was remitted by respondent to the Mississippi Department of Human Services, under section 6402(c), to offset petitioner’s past due support obligations. At trial, petitioner challenged respondent’s authority to remit such amounts; however, this Court has no authority to restrain or review any credit or reduction made by the Commissioner under section 6402. See sec. 6512(b)(4); Savage v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 46 (1999). Decision will be entered for respondent.

perjury under both 18 U.S.C. 1621 and U.S.C. 7206. Thus, not wishing to commit perjury under either statute, I can only swear to have "zero" income for 1992. 7. Please note that my 1992 return also con-stitutes a claim for refund pursuant to IRCode § 6402. 8. I am also putting IRS on notice that my corrected 1992 tax return and claim for refund does not constitute a "frivolous" return pursuant to IRCode § 6702. My amended return and claim for refund is based on 9 court decisions, 9 Internal Reve

First of all, section 6402 gives respondent the authority to credit the amount of an overpayment, including any interest allowed thereon, against any liability with respect to Internal Revenue tax on the part of the person who made the overpayment.