16
1989) (citing Arch Engg. Co. v. United States, 783 F.2d 190, 192
(Fed. Cir. 1986)); American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. v.
United States, 162 Ct. Cl. 106, 318 F.2d 915, 920 (1963).
Therefore, to prevail on their informal claim argument,
petitioners bear the burden of proving that: (1) They filed a
writing with the IRS; (2) this writing requested a refund or
notified the IRS that they would seek a refund; and (3) the IRS
had enough information to begin examining their claim before they
filed their formal refund claim. Petitioners did not file a
written claim for refund of the 1986 overpayment. It is well
established that an oral claim in and of itself is not sufficient
to satisfy section 6511.4 Alisa v. Commissioner, supra (citing
Ritter v. United States, 28 F.2d 265, 267 (3d Cir. 1928) and
Barenfeld v. United States, 194 Ct. Cl. 903, 442 F.2d 371
(1971)).
In the alternative, petitioners argue they are entitled to a
refund of the 1986 overpayment based on the assurances of the IRS
agents that their claim would be considered, that their verbal
requests constituted valid refund claims within the limitations
period, and that taxpayers were not permitted to file amended
returns during an audit. In other words, petitioners argue that
4 Even if "the agent subsequently wrote a memorandum
summarizing the oral statements [it would not] suffice to
validate the alleged claim; the failure to file a written claim
may be taken as an indication the taxpayer does not intend to
prosecute his oral claim." Alisa v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1976-255.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011