- 18 -
1980. It has not been previously assessed, or collected without
assessment, “as a deficiency” for 1980, because at the time it
was remitted, respondent had not made a determination of
petitioner’s tax liability. See Conforte v. Commissioner, 74
T.C. 1160, 1204-1205 (l980), affd. in part, revd. in part and
remanded 692 F.2d 587 (9th Cir. 1982). In fact, no deficiency
for 1980 was even proposed until 1994, 10 years after the
remittance was made. See Greene v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1965-312. Nor can it be a “rebate”, which likewise requires that
respondent have made a “substantive recalculation” of the tax
owed. O’Bryant v. United States, 49 F.3d 340, 342 (7th Cir.
1995); see also Lesinski v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-234.
Instead, under settled principles, the $20,400 was merely a
deposit, made well before any deficiency was proposed or
determined.
A taxpayer’s remittance will generally not be regarded as a
payment of Federal income tax until the taxpayer intends that the
remittance satisfy what the taxpayer regards as an existing tax
liability. See Risman v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 191, 197 (1993)
(citing Rosenman v. United States, 323 U.S. 658, 661-662 (1945));
Ewing v. United States, 914 F.2d 499, 503-504 (4th Cir. 1990);
Fortugno v. Commissioner, 353 F.2d 429, 435 (3d Cir. 1965), affg.
41 T.C. 316 (1963). “Until such time and absent such intent, a
remittance by a taxpayer to respondent generally will be
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011