William D. Colburn - Page 8

                                         -  -8                                           
          affd. without published opinion 894 F.2d 1340 (8th Cir. 1989).              
          On October 4, 1988, while the case was on appeal, the IRS                   
          received a check from the Heftis in the amount of $155,500 which            
          the IRS applied to the Heftis' 1980 through 1982 tax liability.             
          On December 5, 1988, which was prior to the affirmance of our               
          opinion by the Court of Appeals, the IRS assessed the amount of             
          the deficiencies and additions to tax for the tax years 1980                
          through 1982 in accordance with the decision of this Court.                 
          Approximately 1 year after having made the $155,500 payment to              
          the IRS, the Heftis filed claims for refund for the years 1980              
          through 1982 asserting that the IRS had failed to make lawful               
          assessments of the tax for the years 1980 through 1982.  A few              
          weeks after the claims were filed, the IRS denied the claims.               
          The District Court ruled for respondent that the claims were                
          properly denied, and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit           
          affirmed that decision, holding that the assessments made by the            
          IRS on December 5, 1988, while an appeal from the decision of               
          this Court was pending in the Court of Appeals for the Eighth               
          Circuit, were valid assessments made within the appropriate time            
          after a decision by this Court and prior to that decision's                 
          becoming final.  The court pointed out that the Heftis argued               
          that their case was not a typical case alleging an overpayment              
          and seeking a refund; rather they asserted that it involved a               
          demand by them for a return of "deposits" based on the failure of           
          the Government to assess properly their tax liabilities.  The               




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011