Dennis J. Lawless - Page 9

                                        - 8 -                                         
          Amounts Previously Assessed as a Deficiency                                 
               On May 25, 1998, respondent assessed petitioner’s tax as               
          $7,219.  This assessment appears to have been made pursuant to              
          section 6201(a)(1), which authorizes summary assessment of taxes            
          shown on the return.  This assessment was not made pursuant to              
          the deficiency procedures described in subchapter B of chapter 63           
          of the Code.  See sec. 6201(e).  (For discussion of the                     
          distinction between summary assessments and deficiency                      
          assessments, see Murray v. Commissioner, 24 F.3d 901, 902-903               
          (7th Cir. 1994); Meyer v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 555, 559-560                
          (1991).)  Accordingly, the May 25, 1998, assessment does not                
          constitute an “amount previously assessed * * * as a deficiency”            
          within the meaning of section 6211(a)(1)(B).  Thus, the amounts             
          previously assessed as a deficiency are zero.                               
               Pursuant to section 6211(b)(2), the term “rebate” means                
          (with qualifications not germane here) “so much of an abatement,            
          credit, refund, or other repayment as is made on the ground that            
          the income tax imposed” is less than the amount shown on the                
          taxpayer’s return.  Sec. 301.6211-1(f), Proced. & Admin. Regs.              
               On July 6, 1998, respondent abated the entire $7,219                   
          assessment that he had previously made on May 25, 1998.  Although           
          the record is silent as to why respondent made this abatement,              
          the fact that it was for the same amount as had been assessed 2             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011