- 13 -
payments made to this Court after the notice of deficiency will
not deprive this Court of jurisdiction to redetermine taxpayers’
deficiencies. In other words, section 6213(b)(4) permits the
assessment of a payment made by a taxpayer in response to a
notice of deficiency, but such a payment does not deprive this
Court of jurisdiction over the deficiency as determined under
section 6211 without regard to the assessment. Accordingly, the
February 12, 1999, remittances,4 made after the December 30,
1998, notices of deficiency, were not “amounts previously
assessed (or collected without assessment) as a deficiency” and
thus are not subtracted from the deficiency to be adjudicated by
our decision.5
3(...continued)
assessment. [Emphasis added.]
4Petitioners contend that Rev. Proc. 84-58, 1984-2 C.B. 501,
would treat the Feb. 12, 1999, remittances as “payments” of tax.
Respondent contends that Rev. Proc. 84-58 does not bind
respondent in the instant case. While we do not decide this
issue because we hold that we lack jurisdiction to decide it, in
that regard, see Rauenhorst v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 157 (2002),
(Commissioner is bound to positions stated in Commissioner's
published guidance).
5Petitioners contend that the Feb. 12, 1999, remittances
extinguished their tax liability, and they cite a number of cases
in support of this proposition, including: Clark v. United
States, 63 F.3d 83 (1st Cir. 1995); United States v. Wilkes, 946
F.2d 1143 (5th Cir. 1991); and Rodriguez v. United States, 629 F.
Supp. 333 (N.D. Ill. 1986). Those cases state that when a
“taxpayer tenders payment on an assessment, that payment
extinguishes the assessment to the extent of the payment.” Clark
v. United States, supra at 87; see O’Bryant v. Commissioner, 49
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011