- 14 -
facts and circumstances of the case in concluding that the Form
4868 remittance at issue constituted a deposit rather than a
payment. Id. at 203.
We based our rejection of the Batton/England analysis in
part on other statutory language indicating that remittances of
“estimated income tax” as contemplated in section 6513(b)(2) “are
something quite different from taxpayers’ remittances of the
total ‘amount properly estimated as tax’ in requesting extensions
of time to file income tax returns under section 6081.” Risman
v. Commissioner, supra at 201. For instance, we observed that
section 6015(d) (as in effect at the time of the taxpayers’
remittance) provided that, for all purposes of the Code, the term
“estimated tax” does not encompass the individual alternative
minimum tax (AMT). Id. Conversely, section 1.6081-4(a)(4),
Income Tax Regs., contains no such AMT carve-out for purposes of
determining the “amount properly estimated as tax” in the context
of obtaining a filing extension.9 Id.
Since our report in Risman v. Commissioner, supra, four
Courts of Appeals have concluded, based at least in part on the
application of section 6513(b)(2), that a Form 4868 remittance is
9 We also cited language in sec. 6081(b) and former sec.
6152 (both as in effect at the time of the taxpayers’ remittance)
which, taken together, revealed a disconnect between a
corporation’s payment of an “amount properly estimated as its
tax” in the context of a filing extension request and its
“payment of estimated income tax” pursuant to former sec. 6154.
See Risman v. Commissioner, supra at 201-202.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011