- 9 - not germane here, this Court’s jurisdiction is generally limited to redetermining deficiencies in income taxes, estate and gift taxes, and certain specified excise taxes that are subject to the deficiency procedures outlined above. See secs. 6214, 7442; see also Estate of Meyer v. Commissioner, supra at 562; Judd v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 651, 653 (1980). In the instant cases, respondent is attempting to collect alleged erroneous refunds resulting from the trusts’ alleged overstatements of income taxes withheld. The assessments at issue were not subject to the deficiency procedures but instead were subject to the summary assessment procedures of section 6201(a)(3). Under those procedures, overstatements of withheld income taxes are generally treated in the same manner as mathematical or clerical errors appearing on the return, except that in the case of an assessment of an overstated credit for withholding, the taxpayer has no right to request an abatement. See secs. 6201(a)(3), 6213(b)(1) and (2). Therefore, summary assessments with respect to overstatements of withheld taxes provide the taxpayer no right to petition the Tax Court to contest the liability. See sec. 6213(b)(1).7 7 Sec. 6213(b)(1) provides: If the taxpayer is notified that, on account of a mathematical or clerical error appearing on the return, an amount of tax in excess of that shown on the return is due, and that an assessment of (continued...)Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011