- 14 -
In the normal course, the immediate rejection of a claim for
refund might lead the taxpayer to file a refund suit in the
appropriate Federal District Court or the Court of Federal
Claims. Sec. 7422. In the present case, respondent decided not
to accept petitioner's amended returns for 1990 and 1991, which
decision was made after the examination of those years and the
issuance of a notice of deficiency for those years. Respondent's
decision made it appropriate for petitioner to allege, as it did
in its petition for 1990 and 1991, that it is entitled to a
refund consistent with its reporting position as set forth in its
amended returns. Sec. 6512(b). However, petitioner's decision
to invoke this Court's jurisdiction to determine an overpayment
does not render respondent's collection efforts in the present
case improper. To the contrary, by definition, this Court's
jurisdiction to determine an overpayment is based upon the
premise that the amount in question has been collected.
Petitioner argues in the alternative that respondent has
violated the deficiency procedures by "implicitly" disallowing
the short-term capital loss claimed on petitioner's income tax
return for 1993, as well as the carryback of the net short-term
capital loss claimed on petitioner's amended return for 1991, and
then taking steps to collect the resulting "deficiency". To the
contrary, and as discussed above, respondent is not attempting to
collect the deficiency for 1993, including the portion of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011