11- -
Petitioner in his brief cites cases dealing with the time
the Government has for collection of a tax after its assessment.
Petitioner concludes from these cases that "there has to be a
collection of tax either by seizure of petitioner's property or
the sum taken from his refund when issued." It is clear that the
cases cited by petitioner are cases in which prior payment of the
tax had not been made. Apparently petitioner is claiming that
the handling by the Government in the computation of his
overpayment of income tax was effectively a setoff of one tax
against another. As is clear from the facts here stipulated, the
refund to petitioner results from the determination of the amount
of overpayment of income tax due to petitioner for the taxable
year 1966. Section 6659 (as in effect for 1977) provided that
additions to tax shall be paid upon notice or demand and shall be
assessed, collected, and paid in the same manner as taxes, and
that any reference to "tax" imposed by this title shall be deemed
also to refer to additions to tax. There are cases involving
various factual situations that indicate that where a deficiency
for 1 year has been offset against a refund due for another year,
or a different tax, such as a gift or estate tax, is offset
against an overpayment of income tax, the payment date of the
offset tax may be considered to be the date of the offset. We
are not faced with that situation, since here what respondent did
was not technically an offset, but merely the computation of the
amount of overpayment of income tax due petitioner for the year
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011