- 19 -
regarded, not as a payment of tax, but merely as a deposit in the
nature of a cash bond with respect to a tax liability that is to
be determined at a later point in time.” Risman v. Commissioner,
supra at 197. Taxpayers make remittances “in the nature of a
cash bond” in order to halt the accrual of interest liabilities
on tax liabilities before they are assessed. See Rosenman v.
United States, supra. The IRS specifically approves this
procedure and accepts such deposits. See Rev. Proc. 82-51, 1982-
2 C.B. 839, superseded by Rev. Proc. 84-58, 1984-2 C.B. 501. The
procedures adopted by the IRS are “generally consistent” with
court decisions addressing the topic of payment versus deposit.
See Saltzman, IRS Practice & Procedure, par. 11.05[1][b], at 11-
34 (2d ed. 1991).
Thus a taxpayer who makes a remittance before a tax
liability has been ascertained is generally presumed to have
intended to make a deposit. See Plankinton v. United States, 267
F.2d 278, 280 (7th Cir. 1959); Risman v. Commissioner, supra at
198-199. As the IRS explains in Rev. Proc. 82-51, 1982-2 C.B. at
840, at section 3.03(4)(1):
(1) Any undesignated remittance not described in
section 3.03 [i.e., payments made in response to a
proposed liability] made before the written proposal of
a liability, for example, the issuance of a revenue
agent’s or examiner’s report, will be treated by the
Service as a deposit in the nature of a cash bond.
* * *
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