- 11 -
likewise, does not help petitioners in any material respect. His
statement was without direct bearing upon whether Mr. Clayton
mailed the fourth amended return.
The documentary evidence is also unpersuasive. Petitioners
produced a cover letter written by Mr. Wulff, which was attached
to the third and fifth amended returns. This letter offers very
limited support because Mr. Wulff did not mail the letter to
respondent but to petitioners.
Petitioners, in this case, have not produced credible
evidence that the fourth amended return was timely mailed and
postmarked. The evidence is simply insufficient to satisfy
petitioners' burden of proof regarding the mailing of the fourth
amended return. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111
(1933). Without the proper filing of the fourth amended return,
petitioners had an overpayment of $65,937 for taxable year 1985.
Petitioners further argue respondent was obligated to
determine petitioners' correct tax liability when determining a
refund or credit. In support, petitioners rely upon Lewis v.
Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281 (1932), and Rev. Rul. 81-87, 1981-1 C.B.
580. In Lewis, the Supreme Court held that a taxpayer is
entitled to a refund only if he has "overpaid" his tax. Although
the statutes authorizing refunds do not specifically empower the
Commissioner to reaudit a return whenever repayment is claimed,
authority to do so is necessarily implied. An overpayment must
result before refund is authorized. Although the statute of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011