United States v. Richard Tilford, 810 F.3d 370

Tilford and husband were married 1981–2014; in 2012 husband pled guilty to failing to file a 2006 tax return and was sentenced to prison, supervised release, and restitution of $453,547.
Garnishment orders targeted both Tilford and her husband’s property and wages after judgment; the district court issued an order directing employer withholding prior to divorce date.
Tilford and her employer were subject to garnishments for restitution following the government’s writ; Tilford and husband divorced on January 22, 2014.
Tilford moved to quash the writs and to alter or amend judgment; district court denied both motions and final garnishment occurred on March 24, 2015.
The Fifth Circuit reviews garnishment orders for abuse of discretion and, on appeal, held that the innocent-spouse relief under 26 U.S.C. § 66(c) does not apply to criminal restitution; district court’s denial affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §66(c) innocent-spouse relief applies to criminal restitution.	Tilford argues for innocent-spouse relief from restitution.	United States contends §66(c) governs tax liabilities, not criminal restitution.	Not applicable; restitution is not a tax under §66(c).
If §66(c) does not apply, whether the district court properly balanced the §66(c) factors.	Tilford contends factors should be weighed to grant relief if applicable.	Government maintains the defense is unavailable, obviating factor weighing.	Court did not reach factors since §66(c) relief is unavailable.

United States v. Loftis, 607 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2010) (restoration of restitution as a lien treatment under § 3613(c))
Medaris v. United States, 884 F.2d 832 (5th Cir. 1989) (treatment of tax-related restitution actions)
United States v. Elashi, 789 F.3d 547 (5th Cir. 2015) (abuse of discretion in garnishment context)
Roberts v. C.I.R., 860 F.2d 1235 (5th Cir. 1988) (interpretation of tax liability and innocent-spouse concepts)