- 6 -
petitioners reported due in their original 1990 tax return.
Petitioners' response states in pertinent part:
First, the amended return on its face clearly indicates
that a taxpayer will change the original return by
filing the amended return. Second, an amended return
constitutes a claim for refund where the amount of tax
liability reported on the amended return is less than
the amount reported on the original return. Where the
tax was not paid with the original return (as
Petitioners did not do in this case), the IRS cannot,
of course, "refund" what was not initially paid.
However, the reduced amount of tax reported constitutes
a "rebate" as such term is defined at section
6211(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code (essentially,
the taxpayer effects a repayment of a previous
liability). By either rationale, the amended return
filed by Petitioners reduced the amount that they had
self assessed. If Respondent asserts that Petitioners
owe more than the amount of such self assessment, then
the difference constitutes a deficiency. See Section
6211(a) of the IRC.
Respondent filed a response to petitioners' response citing Dover
Corp. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-339, affd. per curiam
F.3d. ___ (2d Cir., June 4, 1998), for the proposition that the
Commissioner's rejection of a taxpayer's amended return does not
convert the disallowed claim for refund or abatement into a tax
deficiency within the meaning of section 6211(a).
Petitioners subsequently filed a response to respondent's
response, citing Russell v. United States, 592 F.2d 1069, 1072
(9th Cir. 1979), and arguing that respondent should be barred
from attempting to collect any amounts for 1990 because the Court
has jurisdiction to decide "the entire gamut of possible issues
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011