- 9 -
Petitioner did not timely file his 1988 return or the
returns for the other years involved in this case, although he
did cooperate with respondent's agents during the audit in 1993
and 1994. On January 9, 1995, respondent mailed three notices of
deficiency to petitioner: one notice for the taxable years 1984
through 1986; another for the years 1987 and 1988; and the third
for the years 1990 and 1991. On April 1, 1995, petitioner
prepared his 1988 tax return, and on April 7, 1995, he filed that
return and returns for the other years. He filed his petition in
the Tax Court on April 10, 1995, challenging all of the
adjustments in the three notices of deficiency.
During the trial session in Dallas, Texas, commencing
February 26, 1996, the parties filed their stipulation of agreed
issues that settled all issues in the case except one, leaving
for trial and for the Court's decision only the question of the
characterization of the remittance as a tax payment or a deposit.
It was during the settlement negotiations and the drafting of the
parties' stipulation of agreed issues that petitioner for the
first time raised the issue that the remittance was a deposit in
the nature of a cash bond.
OPINION
This Court has jurisdiction to determine the existence and
amount of any overpayment of tax to be credited or refunded for
the year or years at issue. Sec. 6512(b)(1). However, section
6512(b)(3) limits the amount of the allowable credit or refund
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011