- 3 -
Petitioners' mathematical error at line 21 of Form 1040A was
detected by respondent's Cincinnati Service Center during the
initial processing of petitioners' income tax return. After
identifying the mathematical error on petitioners' return, the
Cincinnati Service Center mailed petitioners a Correction Notice
dated March 18, 1996, indicating a refund of $2,616.41 was due
petitioners.
Soon thereafter, petitioners received a refund check for
$2,616.41 from respondent. Petitioners contacted the Service
Center to ensure that they were entitled to the additional $1,352
of refund, and after being assured that the amount was correct,
they proceeded to cash the refund check and spend the proceeds.
On November 25, 1997, respondent issued a notice of
deficiency, determining that petitioners had failed to report
$1,640 of wage income received by petitioner wife. This
adjustment resulted in $248 of additional tax and a recapture of
earned income credit in the amount of $334.3
OPINION
Petitioners contend that they did not report petitioner
wife's wage income because they were told by Ms. Havens that
petitioner wife qualified as a dependent of petitioner husband
3 Petitioners do not contest that the recapture of the
earned income credit is purely a mechanical matter dependent upon
the disposition of the issue herein involved.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011