- 7 -
(B) within the period which would be applica-
ble under section 6511(b)(2), (c), or (d), if on
the date of the mailing of the notice of defi-
ciency a claim had been filed (whether or not
filed) stating the grounds upon which the Tax
Court finds that there is an overpayment * * *
The parties agree that section 6512(b)(3)(B) requires us to
focus in the present case on section 6511(b)(2). The dispute
here centers on whether section 6511(b)(2)(A) applies as peti-
tioner contends or whether section 6511(b)(2)(B) applies as
respondent contends.2 The Supreme Court of the United States
(Supreme Court) resolved an identical dispute in Commissioner v.
Lundy, 516 U.S. 235 (1996).
As framed by the Supreme Court, the issue presented to it in
Commissioner v. Lundy, supra, was
which of these two look-back periods [the 3-year look-
back period in section 6511(b)(2)(A) or the 2-year
look-back period in section 6511(b)(2)(B)] to apply
when the taxpayer fails to file a tax return when it is
due, and the Commissioner mails the taxpayer a notice
of deficiency before the taxpayer gets around to filing
a late return.
Id. at 243. The Supreme Court held that section 6512(b)(3)(B)
requires that the 2-year look-back period in section
6511(b)(2)(B) be applied in such a situation. See id.
Shortly after the Supreme Court decided Commissioner v.
2The parties agree that sec. 6511(b)(2)(C) does not apply in
the instant case. For convenience, we shall refer to the differ-
ent time periods specified in sec. 6511(b)(2)(A) and (B) as the
3-year look-back period and the 2-year look-back period, respec-
tively.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011