- 17 -
between the definition of "return" as found in sections 6103(b)
of the Code and 9781.348.2 of the manual and "return" as used in
section 6211 or defined in section 6213(g)(1), we also do not see
how those definitions help petitioners. Consequently, we
conclude that the cover letter and the conversations between
their accountant and respondent's employees do not constitute a
return.
Respondent issued a refund to petitioners for the amount
requested on the third amended return. Accordingly, we hold that
there was no erroneous action by respondent and that the refund
was based on a recalculation of petitioners' tax liability and
that the refund of $65,937 does come within the statutory
framework of section 6211 for purposes of calculating
petitioners' 1985 tax deficiency. We have considered all of the
other arguments made by petitioners and, to the extent we have
not addressed them, find them to be without merit.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Last modified: May 25, 2011