John and Louisa A. Hodel - Page 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                   
               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.               

Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011