Frederic S. Clayton and Marlene B. Clayton - Page 11

                                                - 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