- 8 -
Petitioner argues that his withheld taxes are fully
recoverable with interest because they are "deposits" rather than
payments. Petitioner relies on Cohen v. United States, 995 F.2d
205, 207 (Fed. Cir. 1993), wherein the court stated: "if the
remittance was a deposit, a payment did not occur until the
formal assessments".4 Petitioner argues that since the period of
limitations for assessment has expired, the deposit should be
treated as an overpayment which should be refunded. We disagree.
The taxes withheld from petitioner's wages were not
deposits. Section 6513(b) provides that "For purposes of section
6511 or 6512--(1) Any tax actually deducted and withheld at the
source during any calendar year under chapter 24 shall, in
respect of the recipient of the income, be deemed to have been
paid by him on the 15th day of the fourth month following the
close of his taxable year". During 1984, Westinghouse Electric
Corp. withheld tax from petitioner's wages in the amount of
$4,396.95.5 Pursuant to section 6513(b), the taxes withheld from
petitioner's 1984 wages are deemed to have been paid by
4In Cohen v. United States, 995 F.2d 205 (Fed. Cir. 1993),
the taxpayer made a deposit that was followed by untimely
assessments. In the instant case, there has been no untimely
assessment.
5Sec. 3402(a)(1) requires that "every employer making
payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a
tax". Further, sec. 3401(a) provides: "the term 'wages' means
all remuneration * * * for services performed by an employee for
his employer".
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011