- 10 -
in his reply brief, Ertman was decided by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, the court to which this case
would normally be appealed, after opening briefs were filed in
this case.) In Ertman, the Court of Appeals held that
remittances submitted with Forms 4868, Application for Automatic
Extension of Time to File U.S. Individual Income Tax Return,
constituted payments, not deposits, and therefore the taxpayers'
entitlement to refunds was limited by section 6511. See id.
Respondent goes on to point out that his own revenue
procedure, Rev. Proc. 84-58, supra section 4.03, 1984-2 C.B. at
502-503, explicitly says that any payment which is "specifically
designated as a deposit in the nature of a cash bond will be
treated as a payment of tax if it is made in response to a
proposed liability * * * and remittance in full of the proposed
liability is made." (Emphasis added.) Respondent nevertheless
argues that because decedent's remittance was "undesignated", the
IRS was authorized to reallocate it.
Where a taxpayer makes an involuntary payment, the IRS may
allocate or reallocate the payment as it sees fit, regardless of
taxpayer designation, if any. As we stated in Amos v.
Commissioner, 47 T.C. 65, 69 (1966): "An involuntary payment of
Federal taxes means a payment received by agents of the United
States as a result of distraint or levy or from a legal
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011