- 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