- 5 -
Petitioners' claim for refund as set forth in the amended
return was allowed on March 22, 1994. Petitioners subsequently
received the refund.
Petitioners were notified on or before November 15, 1994,
that respondent had determined that the lump-sum payment was
taxable income to them for the taxable year 1992. Respondent
issued the notice of deficiency for that year on July 21, 1995.
Discussion
Initially, we deal with several arguments advanced by
petitioners which are essentially directed to the proposition
that respondent should be estopped from requiring them to pay
tax on the lump-sum payment. These arguments are as follows:
(1) in addition to relying on the information contained in the
newsletter article, prior to filing the amended return, Mrs. Keel
was advised by IBM's Payroll Department and by an IRS
representative that the lump-sum payment was not taxable; (2) the
refund was consistent with that advice; (3) petitioners have
acted in good faith and respondent should do the same and not
seek to negate the refund, which respondent should have reviewed
more carefully and not made based on respondent's claim that the
lump-sum payment is taxable; and (4) other similarly situated co-
workers have not been contacted to return the refunds they
obtained and respondent should not be allowed selectively to
enforce the tax laws.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011