-12-
the remittance in question is a payment of tax or a deposit. In
the instant case, there is no evidence in the record to indicate
petitioner intended either the $5,000 in estimated tax payments or
the $8,000 remittance included with his request for an extension of
time to file his 1988 tax return to be anything other than that
which it purports to be; namely, a payment against petitioner's
1988 tax liability. Cf. Risman v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 191
(1993). Moreover, we are mindful that an appeal in this case lies
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which in Ott
v. United States, 141 F.3d 1306 (9th Cir. 1998), stated that as a
matter of statutory construction, a remittance with a request for
an extension of time to file a tax return constituted a tax
payment, not merely a deposit. Consequently, the Court of Appeals
held that the limitations period for seeking a refund of taxes paid
in Ott began to run at the time of remittance. Id. at 1309. A
similar holding is required in this case. See Golsen v.
Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742 (1970), affd. 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir.
1971).
To summarize, petitioner's claimed overpayment for 1988 is
time barred. See Commissioner v. Lundy, supra.
With regard to 1992, petitioner had $39,368.97 in withheld
income taxes, which is deemed to have been paid on April 15, 1993.
See sec. 6513(b)(1). The parties have stipulated that petitioner's
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011