Roxie Lee Jackson - Page 11




                                       - 11 -                                         
          Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. v. United States, 162 Ct. Cl.            
          106, 318 F.2d 915, 920 (1963).                                              
               The sparse record in this case establishes that the April              
          1996 letter notified respondent that petitioner believed he had             
          overpaid his taxes for 1993 and 1994 and that he was entitled to            
          a refund of those overpayments.  The April 1996 letter, however,            
          contained no description of the basis for petitioner’s refund               
          claim.  For a writing to qualify as an informal refund claim, the           
          writing, evaluated with reference to the surrounding                        
          circumstances, must give the Commissioner adequate notice that              
          the taxpayer is seeking a refund of taxes for specified years and           
          of the basis for the claim.  The relevant inquiry, therefore, is            
          whether, under all the facts and circumstances, petitioner gave             
          sufficient notice of the basis for his refund claim to respondent           
          so that respondent could investigate the claim and make a                   
          determination on the merits.  See, e.g., Turco v. Commissioner,             
          T.C. Memo. 1997-564.                                                        
               In this case, we are presented with a factual record that is           
          so inadequate we cannot fairly conclude that petitioner made an             
          informal refund claim.  Neither the April 1996 letter nor                   
          petitioner’s jointly filed income tax return for 1992 is an                 
          exhibit in this case.  Although respondent agrees the April 1996            
          letter was sent and does not dispute that the contents of the               
          April 1996 letter are as described by petitioner and his wife at            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011