- 11 -
issuance of a notice of deficiency. See Terry v. Commissioner,
91 T.C. 85, 87 (1988); Owens v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 577, 583
(1968), and cases cited therein.
Here, respondent treated petitioners' amended return as an
informal claim for abatement. Further, following an examination
of petitioners' 1990 tax return, respondent considered and
rejected the merits of the claim, as evidenced by the discussion
of the matter in the 30-day letter that respondent issued to
petitioners on December 31, 1995. We agree with respondent that
the rejection of a claim for refund or abatement in an amended
return does not convert the disallowed claim into a deficiency.
See Koch v. Alexander, 561 F.2d 1115, 1117-1118 (4th Cir. 1977);
see also Curry v. United States, 774 F.2d 852, 854 n.1 (7th Cir.
1985).
Petitioners further contend that the Court could treat their
amended return as the equivalent of a rebate within the meaning
of section 6211(b)(2).3 Petitioners suggest that their amended
return "essentially * * * effects a repayment of a previous
liability." We disagree. Considering the reality that
3 The term "rebate" is defined in sec. 6211(b)(2) as
follows:
(2) The term "rebate" means so much of an
abatement, credit, refund, or other payment, as was
made on the ground that the tax imposed by subtitle A
or B or chapter 41, 42, 43, or 44 was less than the
excess of the amount specified in subsection (a)(1)
over the rebates previously made.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011