- 13 -
a refund is claimed, such power does not create an obligation of
respondent to do so. See United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil
Co., 288 U.S. 62, 70-71 (1933); Taranto v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1975-372. We are convinced that section 6402(a) does not
require respondent to use his resources in such a matter before
issuing a refund. Cf. Clark v. Commissioner, 158 F.2d 851 (6th
Cir. 1946), affg. a Memorandum Opinion of this Court. Viewing
the facts in total, we are satisfied that respondent was
justified in issuing a refund in the amount of $65,937.
Alternatively, petitioners argue that there was no
overpayment in taxable year 1985 because respondent should have
treated the additional tax due as part of the amount "shown as
the tax by the taxpayer upon his return" for purposes of section
6211(a)(1)(A). Petitioners contend that the cover letters and
Mr. Wulff's telephone conversations with respondent's employees
were sufficient to alert respondent as to their additional
liability. In other words, petitioners argue that the additional
tax, which they acknowledge was due notwithstanding their failure
to file a return reporting the tax, qualifies as an "amount shown
as the tax by the taxpayer upon his return" within the meaning of
section 6211(a)(1)(A). We disagree.
Section 6211 defines a deficiency as the amount by which the
correct tax due exceeds the sum of: (1) The amount shown by the
taxpayer as the tax due on his return if a return was made and
(2) amounts previously assessed or collected without assessment.
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