- 21 -
Because we conclude that the $20,400 remittance was a
deposit with respect to the 1980 tax year, it has no effect upon
the deficiency ultimately determined for petitioner in that year.
We accordingly lack jurisdiction over that amount for 1980, the
only taxable year before us in this proceeding. See Savage v.
Commissioner, 112 T.C. 46 (1999).5
It follows that we need not address petitioner’s proffer of
additional evidence concerning the $20,400 remittance, or its
return with interest. Petitioner again seeks to introduce the
testimony of Ms. Mellerke. This time petitioner seeks to show
that Wynne had stated “that she’d received a refund check that
was intended for someone else, and she had signed the check and
cashed it”. Respondent objected to this testimony, asserting
both that it is inadmissible hearsay and that it is irrelevant.
Once again, we do not rule upon the hearsay objection, because we
conclude that evidence that Wynne had taken the returned
remittance for herself is not relevant here, where we have no
jurisdiction to address issues relating to that remittance.
5 This $20,400 was refunded only after being credited to
petitioner’s 1982 tax account. When refunded, it included $902
as interest--apparently reflecting the accrual of interest for
the 6 months that it had been credited to petitioner’s 1982 tax
liabilities. There is no evidence why respondent returned the
$20,400; it may have been agreed to by petitioner’s duly
authorized representatives, or it may have been issued as the
result of a mistake by the IRS. In any event, we lack
jurisdiction over that amount, because petitioner’s 1982 tax year
is not before us in this proceeding.
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