- 11 -
2d 95-7980, 96-1 USTC par. 50,088 (5th Cir. 1995) (following
Thomas and Ford).
iii. Baral v. United States
In Baral v. United States, 528 U.S. 431, 437-438 (2000), a
section 6511 case involving income tax withholding and a
remittance of estimated tax, the Supreme Court rejected the
interpretation of Rosenman v. United States, supra, by the Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit as being at odds with the plain
language of section 6513(b)(1) and (2). Section 6513(b)(2)
provides that, for purposes of section 6511 or 6512,5 remittances
of estimated income tax in respect of a taxable year are deemed
paid on the deadline (determined without regard to extensions)
for filing that year’s return. Section 6513(b)(1) contains a
similar rule for income tax withholding. In a footnote, the
Court stated: “We need not address the proper treatment under �
6511 of remittances that, unlike withholding and estimated income
tax, are not governed by a ‘deemed paid’ provision akin to �
6513(b).” Baral v. United States, supra at 439 n.2. Thus, in
the context of remittances not described in section 6513(b), the
facts and circumstances approach to distinguishing between
payments and deposits, as developed under Rosenman and its
progeny, retains its viability. See VanCanagan v. United States,
5 Sec. 6512(b) contains rules relating to overpayment
determinations by the Tax Court. Sec. 6512(b)(3) provides
“lookback” rules in part by reference to sec. 6511(b)(2).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011