Attorney-at-Law

THEY DIDN’T READ TAISHOFF’S BLOG

In Uncategorized on 08/03/2020 at 13:43

When I came upon Bradley Rice & Laura Rice, Docket No. 7890-19, filed 8/3/20, there flashed through my mind my “lookback” series of blogposts, starting with “Lookback in Anger,” 12/12/11, and ending with “Lookback and Get a Refund,” 10/24/19. It seems neither IRS nor Bradley & Laura had read any thereof.

My somewhat carrier-witted mind recurred to the story of the retired hardware dealer (to my offshore readers an ironmonger) and his feckless son and successor, giving rise to the title set forth at hereof, as my high-priced colleagues would say. But that is not for a blog meant for ecumenical reading. Back to work!

Bradley & Laura and IRS lay upon the cyberdesk of ex-Ch J Michael B (“Iron Mike”) Thornton a joint settlement stip and a joint proposed stipulated decision. Said documents seek entry of decision that Bradley & Laura are entitled to credit for overpayments in each of two (count ’em, two) successive years.

Ex-Ch J Iron Mike bounces them both.

“Section 6512(b)(1) confers jurisdiction on the Tax Court to determine the amount of an overpayment which is to be credited or refunded to the taxpayer for a year that is properly before us for the redetermination of a deficiency. An overpayment of tax under section 6512(b)(1) requires, among other things, payment in excess of the deficiency plus any penalties and additions to tax. In addition, section 6512(b)(3) limits the amount of the allowable credit or refund based on the time of payment of tax and provides that ‘[n]o such credit or refund shall be allowed or made of any portion of the tax unless the Tax Court determines as part of its decision that such portion was paid’ within one of three specified time periods. The parties’ filings lack appropriate language to establish petitioners’ entitlement to any overpayment.” Order, at p. 1. (Footnote and citation omitted).

Besides, the stip only refers to attached statements of account, rather than reciting specific amounts and dates. Worse, the contemned documents “…incorrectly refer to ‘additions to tax’ due from petitioners under the provisions of section 6662(a). Section 6662(a) imposes a ‘penalty’ rather than an ‘addition to tax’, in contrast to provisions such as section 6651(a), which imposes an ‘addition to the tax’. Order, at p. 2.

Takeaway- When credits or refunds are on the Tax Court table, don’t forget to look back.

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: