- 6 -
later awarded disability compensation, who have filed amended
returns reclassifying the payments as disability pay and have
received refunds. We do not have before us evidence from which
we can determine whether or not petitioner’s case is
distinguishable from the situations he describes. Payment of a
refund claimed is neither an express or an implied approval by
the Internal Revenue Service of items reported on a return. See
Warner v. Commissioner, 526 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1975), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1974-243. In any event, a taxpayer is not entitled to
erroneous treatment, even if another taxpayer or the same
taxpayer in another year has received the benefit of an error.
As we stated in Malinowski v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 1120, 1128
(1979):
It has long been the position of this Court that our
responsibility is to apply the law to the facts of the
case before us and to determine the tax liability of
the parties before us; how the Commissioner may have
treated other taxpayers has generally been considered
irrelevant in making that determination. * * *
See Davis v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 1014, 1022 (1976); Estate of
Guenzel v. Commissioner, 28 T.C. 59, 63 (1957), affd. 258 F.2d
248 (8th Cir. 1958).
To reflect the agreement of the parties,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: May 25, 2011