Estate of Stella Adler Wilson - Page 13

                                       - 13 -                                         

          designation.  It has to follow, moreover, that since the IRS                
          found the $95,916.67 to be a designated interest payment, the               
          $89,410 must have likewise been a designated tax payment.  To               
          argue otherwise, as respondent does, is to fly in the face of his           
          own revenue procedure.                                                      
               Section 6213(b)(4) provides an exception to the general rule           
          of section 6213(a), that no assessment may be made, among other             
          things, while a case is pending in the Tax Court.  Under section            
          6213(b)(4), any amount paid as a tax or in respect of a tax may             
          be assessed upon the receipt of such payment notwithstanding the            
          provisions of section 6213(a).                                              
               Rev. Proc. 84-58, supra section 4.01, 1984-2 C.B. at 502,              
          provides that "a remittance made after the mailing of a notice of           
          deficiency in complete or partial satisfaction of the deficiency            
          will, absent any instructions from the taxpayer, be considered a            
          payment of tax and will be posted to the taxpayer's account as              
          such as soon as possible."  While not expressly stated, the                 
          manifest implication of this language is that a specific tax as             
          to type and year, i.e., the tax determined in the deficiency                
          notice, is what is paid, and not any tax that the IRS may choose.           
          We believe a remittance in full payment of the tax in response to           
          a deficiency notice fulfills this IRS administrative requirement,           
          and that decedent's 1986 remittance should have been treated as a           
          payment of tax for 1980.  For the foregoing reasons, we hold that           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011