Robert C. Austin - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
          Form 4868 and had requested an extension for the subsequent                 
          year's return.  Based on those facts and circumstances, we held             
          that the taxpayers' remittance was a deposit.                               
               In the instant case, petitioner changed the amount of the              
          remittance from a round figure of $19,600 to $19,789.96.  He did            
          not want the amount of the remittance to look "too pat".  He                
          changed the figure to $19,789.96 so that it would look "more                
          logical".  In other words, petitioner wanted the amount of the              
          remittance to appear to be a valid, rather than a made-up,                  
          figure.  Respondent treated petitioner's remittance as a payment            
          of tax.  Petitioner never contacted respondent regarding the                
          treatment of the remittance.   During 1993 and 1994, when                   
          petitioner was cooperating fully with respondent's agents in the            
          audit, he never suggested that the remittance was merely a                  
          deposit.  Shortly before trial, when the parties made their                 
          calculations in connection with their settlement negotiations,              
          petitioner for the first time raised the issue as to whether the            
          remittance was a payment of tax or a deposit.                               
               Under the Golsen rule, "where the Court of Appeals to which            
          appeal lies has already passed upon the issue before us,                    
          efficient and harmonious judicial administration calls for us to            
          follow the decision of that court."  Golsen v. Commissioner, 54             
          T.C. 742, 757 (1970), affd. 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971).  An              
          appeal in this case would lie to the Court of Appeals for the               

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011