- 10 -
of such tax with their return. It follows that the disputed
amount does not constitute a deficiency within the meaning of
section 6211(a) and that respondent is free to collect the
disputed amount pursuant to section 6201(a)(1). Consistent with
the foregoing, respondent was not required to (and indeed did
not) include the disputed amount in the notice of deficiency for
1990. In this regard, the instant case is virtually
indistinguishable from Meyer v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 555 (1991).
In an effort to avoid the conclusion that the Court lacks
the authority under section 6213(a) to bar respondent's
collection efforts in this case, petitioners maintain that their
amended return for 1990 provides a basis for the Court to grant
their motion to restrain collection. We disagree.
Petitioners contend that a taxpayer is free to "change" the
amount of tax that has been "self-assessed" by filing an amended
return, and that the Commissioner should be obliged to accept
amended tax returns regardless of whether the taxpayer is
reporting an increase or a decrease in tax liability. We are not
persuaded by petitioners' position. See Dover Corp. v.
Commissioner, supra. An amended return constitutes a claim for
refund that the Commissioner may review and adjust either by way
of an immediate rejection of the refund claim, see McCabe v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-325, and cases discussed therein,
or by tentative allowance, subsequent audit, and, if necessary,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011