Espiridion Quiroz- Administrative Offset Decision

By letter dated March 4, 1986 and received and filed by this Board on March 11, 1986, counsel for the Petitioner has requested reconsideration of the Decision and Order issued January 17, 1986 in this matter. That Decision and Order authorized the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to refer Petitioner's debt to the Internal Revenue Service in accordance with 31 U.S.C. §3720A for offset against any refund which is owing to the Petitioner with respect to his 1985 income tax return.

As a basis for the request for reconsideration, counsel for Petitioner submits "that there are two things wrong with your order," i.e., (1) since the subject note "went into default on January 15, 1980 [, t]he four statute (sic) of limitations has run which no longer makes it an enforceable debt"; and (2) Petitioner "is now married to a different lady," and "[i]f the government attempts to take the 1985 tax return, the government will be taking property belonging to the new Mrs. Quiroz who is not indebted to the government."

The United States Government is not bound by a state statute of limitations in this action. 31 U.S.C. §3716 states that the head of an agency or his designee may, after attempting to collect a claim from a person arising from the activities of the agency, collect the claim by means of administrative offset, except that no claim under this statute that has been outstanding for more than ten years may be collected by means of administrative offset. Since this claim has not been outstanding for more than ten years, it is not barred by the applicable federal statute of limitations.

The Secretary is not prohibited from referring Petitioner's debt to the Internal Revenue Service for offset simply because the Petitioner's marital status has changed. Nothing in the pertinent statute prohibits the Internal Revenue Service from proceeding to offset a debtor's income tax refund simply because the debtor elects to file a joint tax return with a spouse instead of an individual tax return.

The Petitioner has failed to assert sufficient grounds in support of his motion for reconsideration. The Decision and Order issued in this matter on January 17, 1986 is affirmed.

March 11, 1986