- 9 - $31,000 remittance to be specifically or exclusively for the 1980 tax year under these circumstances. Respondent argues that the remittance was treated by the Internal Revenue Service as an estimated tax payment.7 By analogy, respondent cites Gabelman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-592, on appeal (6th Cir., Mar. 3, 1995), where we decided that remittances submitted with Forms 4868 (Applications for Automatic Extension of Time To File U.S. Individual Income Tax Return) were payments of tax. In that case we pointed out that “Generally, a remittance by a taxpayer to respondent will not be considered a payment ‘until the taxpayer intends that the remittance satisfy what the taxpayer regards as an existing tax liability’” (emphasis supplied) (quoting Risman v. Commissioner, supra at 197). From all of the facts in that case, including the language on the Form 4868 and the fact that the taxpayer had estimated the tax liability due on the application for an extension of time to file, we held that the remittances were payments. The facts of this case are obviously distinguishable from those of Gabelman v. Commissioner, supra. Under the subjective standard established by case law, respondent’s treatment of the remittance is not conclusive, although it is one of the factors to be considered. The question here is not parallel with situations where an essentially objective standard is employed in attempting to decide whether a 7 Respondent admitted on brief that she was unable to locate any declaration of estimated income tax form accompanying the $31,000 check.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011