- 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