- 4 -
by respondent’s acceptance of petitioner’s return and that we
lack jurisdiction over the refund because there is no deficiency.
Petitioner also objects due to the motion's lateness and
prejudicial effect. Respondent argues that her claim in respect
of the refund constitutes a determination of deficiency and that,
therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to grant its recovery. We
first address the jurisdictional issue.
Section 6514(a)(1) provides that "A refund of any portion of
an internal revenue tax shall be considered erroneous and a
credit of any such portion shall be considered void * * * If made
after the expiration of the period of limitation for filing claim
therefor, unless within such period claim was filed". Refunds
may be erroneous for other reasons. Secs. 6514, 7405.
Respondent has more than one remedy to recover erroneous refunds;
these include bringing a civil suit under section 7405 or
following the deficiency procedures under sections 6211 through
6215. Beer v. Commissioner, 733 F.2d 435, 436 (6th Cir. 1984),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1982-735; Pesch v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 100,
117-118 (1982).
The jurisdiction of this Court is limited and may be
exercised only pursuant to specific statutory authorization.
Belloff v. Commissioner, 996 F.2d 607, 611 (2d Cir. 1993), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1991-350; Pen Coal Corp. v. Commissioner, 107 T.C.
249, 254 (1996). That authorization encompasses the
determination of deficiencies pursuant to section 6214(a) and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011