- 7 -
If we find that petitioner’s $31,000 remittance was an
estimated tax payment, then, under section 6315, it is considered
a payment of income tax for the year of payment. Respondent
contends that the $31,000 remittance was an estimated tax
payment, and petitioner contends that it was a deposit. The
proper characterization of the $31,000 is a question of
petitioner’s intent and is generally to be established by all the
relevant facts and circumstances associated with the remittance.
But for the notation ("1st Est 1980") on petitioner’s
$31,000 check, the evidence in this case reflects that petitioner
did not intend to make a payment (estimated or otherwise) of tax
for 1980. At the time of the payment, petitioner had not filed
his 1979 return (although it was due). During 1980 petitioner
had earned about $20,000 in wages, all of which was subject to
withholding, up to that point in 1980 when he sent the $31,000
check. Although petitioner had purchased an oil well investment,
he did not know whether it would produce income during 1980, and,
only 1 month after the $31,000 payment, the well was declared to
be “dry.” Ultimately, when petitioner did file his 1980 return
in 1993, he claimed a loss for the full investment in the oil
well. Accordingly, petitioner’s testimony that he did not intend
the $31,000 as payment for 1980 taxes and that it was for future
tax obligations is supported by documents and other evidence in
the record.
The check notation, "1st Est 1980", is a more troublesome
aspect of this case. Petitioner contends that he used that
terminology because he did not know of any other way to make an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011