- 10 -
taxpayer made a proper election for tax purposes. In an attempt
to make an election, a taxpayer must comply with statutory
requirements in order to succeed. See discussion in Miller v.
Commissioner, 104 T.C. 330, 338-340 (1995). Instead, we consider
here the intent of a payor. More specifically, the payor
(petitioner) was attempting to make a deposit because he knew
that, ultimately, tax liability would be generated by his drug
use, illegal activity, divorce, or other circumstances.
Significantly, petitioner had no actual tax liability when he
remitted the $31,000. Although petitioner’s approach is unartful
and reveals a lack of procedural tax expertise, the overwhelming
weight of the evidence in this record supports the conclusion
that petitioner’s $31,000 remittance was a deposit and not a
payment of estimated tax, and we so hold.
Having held that the $31,000 was a deposit, we must decide
whether petitioner intended to apply it in payment of his 1982
tax. We have jurisdiction to decide whether an overpayment
exists for 1982. Conversely, we have no jurisdiction to decide
the $7,294.43 overpayment of withholding claimed for 1979 or the
$2,777.29 overpayment of withholding claimed for 1980. Sec.
6214(b). We can decide whether the $31,000 deposit was directed
for payment of an acknowledged liability for 1982.
Petitioner reported that he earned the income in his 1982
late-filed return, and he conceded, for purposes of trial, that
he is liable for the tax deficiency and additions to tax
determined by respondent. Petitioner, however, when he untimely
filed his 1979, 1980, 1981, and 1982 income tax returns, claimed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011