- 9 -
months earlier leads us to conclude that respondent made a
substantive recalculation of petitioner’s tax liability and
concluded (albeit erroneously) that petitioner’s tax liability
was zero. Accordingly, the abatement was a rebate under section
6211(a)(2). See Interlake Corp. v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 103,
110 (1999); cf. Singleton v. United States, 128 F.3d 833 (4th
Cir. 1997).5
Conclusion
The sum of the amount of tax shown on petitioner’s return
($7,219) plus amounts previously assessed as a deficiency (zero)
is $7,219. This sum does not exceed the amount of rebates
($7,219). Thus, under section 6211(a), there is a deficiency
equal to the amount of the tax imposed, to be determined in the
Rule 155 computations.
To reflect the foregoing and concessions,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
5 The July 6, 1998, refund of $5,884 was not a separate
rebate but was merely the byproduct of the July 6, 1998,
abatement. In any event, even if the July 6, 1998, refund were
considered to be a separate rebate, it would not change the
result under sec. 6211(a). Recall that under sec. 6211(a), the
deficiency represents basically the excess of the tax imposed
over an amount representing, in this case, the amount by which
the tax shown on the return exceeds the rebate. In this case,
whether the rebate is considered to be $7,219 (the amount of the
abatement) or $13,303 (the abatement plus the refund), the tax
shown on the return will not exceed the rebate. Accordingly,
under either scenario, the deficiency would equal the amount of
tax imposed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: May 25, 2011