Dennis J. Lawless - Page 10

                                        - 9 -                                         
          months earlier leads us to conclude that respondent made a                  
          substantive recalculation of petitioner’s tax liability and                 
          concluded (albeit erroneously) that petitioner’s tax liability              
          was zero.  Accordingly, the abatement was a rebate under section            
          6211(a)(2).  See Interlake Corp. v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 103,             
          110 (1999); cf. Singleton v. United States, 128 F.3d 833 (4th               
          Cir. 1997).5                                                                
               The sum of the amount of tax shown on petitioner’s return              
          ($7,219) plus amounts previously assessed as a deficiency (zero)            
          is $7,219.  This sum does not exceed the amount of rebates                  
          ($7,219).  Thus, under section 6211(a), there is a deficiency               
          equal to the amount of the tax imposed, to be determined in the             
          Rule 155 computations.                                                      
               To reflect the foregoing and concessions,                              

                                                Decision will be entered              
                                           under Rule 155.                            

               5 The July 6, 1998, refund of $5,884 was not a separate                
          rebate but was merely the byproduct of the July 6, 1998,                    
          abatement.  In any event, even if the July 6, 1998, refund were             
          considered to be a separate rebate, it would not change the                 
          result under sec. 6211(a).  Recall that under sec. 6211(a), the             
          deficiency represents basically the excess of the tax imposed               
          over an amount representing, in this case, the amount by which              
          the tax shown on the return exceeds the rebate.  In this case,              
          whether the rebate is considered to be $7,219 (the amount of the            
          abatement) or $13,303 (the abatement plus the refund), the tax              
          shown on the return will not exceed the rebate.  Accordingly,               
          under either scenario, the deficiency would equal the amount of             
          tax imposed.                                                                

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011