- 11 -
remittance was a payment of tax, whereas petitioner argues that
it was a deposit in the nature of a cash bond.
In Risman v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 191, 197 (1993), an
earlier case involving a taxpayer's remittance with a Form 4868,
this Court stated that "A remittance by a taxpayer to respondent
generally will not be regarded as a payment of Federal income tax
until the taxpayer intends that the remittance satisfy what the
taxpayer regards as an existing tax liability." We concluded
that "remittances made by taxpayers with Form 4868 extension
requests are not necessarily to be treated, as a matter of law,
as payments of tax as of the filing date of the associated income
tax return". Id. at 203. We applied instead a facts and
circumstances test in ascertaining the taxpayer's intent.
In Risman v. Commissioner, supra, the taxpayers made a
remittance with a Form 4868 in an amount of $25,000 that bore no
good faith relationship to the taxpayers' tax liability for the
year specified, i.e., an arbitrary, disorderly, or random
remittance. The IRS treated the remittance as a deposit by
placing it in a suspense account upon receipt. The taxpayers
wrote to the IRS approximately 14 months later indicating that
the remittance had not been based on any estimate of their tax
liability for that year and that they expected the remittance
would be applied to future taxes owed on tax returns not yet
filed. At the time of their letter, the taxpayers were
delinquent in filing the return for the year specified on the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011