12- -
1966. In Kingston Prods. Corp. v. United States, 177 Ct. Cl.
471, 368 F.2d 281, 286, 287 (1966), there is a lengthy discussion
of the difference in an "offset" which involves a different
year's tax or a different tax and a computation of tax for a
single taxable year. The court there pointed out that where a
single tax for a single tax year is involved, certain adjustments
will result in an increase in tax and other adjustments a
decrease, with the net effect of all the adjustments resulting in
either an overpayment or a deficiency, as the case may be. In
that case, it was concluded that the principle of "offset" being
date of payment had no application, since the facts in that case
showed no offset of a deficiency against an overassessment, but
the offsetting of an upward adjustment against a downward
adjustment to a single tax for a single tax year. The court
concluded that if such action could be designated as "offset",
that type of "offset" would clearly not constitute a credit or
payment within the meaning of the relevant statutes. See
sections 6402(a), 6407. Cases dealing with collection on which
petitioner relies are factually distinguishable from the present
case because here petitioner paid the tax in full before it was
assessed.
We, therefore, conclude that since payment of the additions
to tax had been made at the time that these additions to tax were
timely assessed on December 12, 1977, there was no amount to be
collected when the Government computed an overpayment due to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011