- 20 -
There is no evidence that, at the time the remittance was
made, respondent had issued a “revenue agent’s or examiner’s
report” or any other written proposal of a liability for 1980.
Petitioner made the $20,400 remittance in April of 1984, some 16
months before respondent’s agent made the preliminary indication
of a $91,086 deficiency in the examination report dated July 24,
1985, and some 10 years before respondent determined the
deficiency to be $43,750. Moreover, petitioner’s remittance of
$20,400 bore no perceptible relationship to either of these
amounts. Petitioner himself could shed no further light on the
nature of the remittance, indicating only that he may have made
it to stop the running of interest. These factors are
characteristic of a deposit in the nature of a cash bond; they
are inconsistent with a finding that the remittance was actually
a payment or was meant to be one. See Ewing v. United States,
supra at 503.4 We therefore conclude that the $20,400 was not,
and was not intended to be, “an amount collected * * * as a
deficiency” as to which we have jurisdiction under section
6211(a)(1)(B).
4 We have taken into consideration the IRS payment posting
voucher which contains a checked section indicating that the
payment was a Code 640 “Advance payment on deficiency”. The same
voucher, however, bears the handwritten legend in the “remarks”
section that the $20,400 serves as a “cash bond”. The voucher
thus supports either the payment or deposit interpretation, and
accordingly it is not persuasive as to either. Cf. Ewing v.
United States, 914 F.2d 499, 503 n.10 (4th Cir. 1990).
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