Dover Corporation and Subsidiaries - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         

          petitioner's election to treat the overpayments claimed on the              
          amended returns as credits to be applied as estimated tax                   
          payments for succeeding taxable years.                                      
               Consistent with the decision not to accept petitioner's                
          amended returns for 1990 and 1991, respondent concluded that                
          petitioner had failed to pay a portion of the tax reported on its           
          income tax return for 1993.  Specifically, respondent assessed              
          (and is attempting to collect) tax for 1993 directly related to             
          the disallowance of the $12,621,181 overpayment claimed on                  
          petitioner's amended return for 1991--the amount that petitioner            
          attempted to treat as a credit to be applied as an estimated tax            
          payment for 1993.                                                           
          Notably, petitioner's petition for redetermination, filed at                
          docket No. 21334-94 on November 18, 1994, contesting respondent's           
          deficiency determinations for 1990 and 1991, includes allegations           
          intended to invoke the Court's jurisdiction to determine an                 
          overpayment pursuant to section 6512(b); i.e., that petitioner is           
          entitled to refunds for overpayments based upon the items                   
          reported in its amended returns for 1990 and 1991.                          
               The Court is satisfied that respondent's collection efforts            
          are not directed at the deficiency for 1993 that is the subject             
          of the petition filed in the present case.  In particular, the              
          only relationship between the deficiency in dispute in the                  
          present case and the amount that respondent has assessed and is             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011