- 16 -
undoubtedly had knowledge of the years under examination, but
petitioners did not tell him that the subsequent year from which
a loss would carry back was 1992, or identify the year or years,
among those under examination to which the loss would be carried
back, or, more importantly, give him any particulars of that loss
other than that it was expected to be based on the cost of goods
sold used in the criminal case against petitioner. To constitute
a claim for refund, a taxpayer must give the Commissioner
adequate notice of the grounds, including the factual basis, for
the claim before the expiration of the period of limitations so
that the Commissioner can, if he wishes, initiate an examination
of the bona fides of the claim. See Estate of Mueller v.
Commissioner, 107 T.C. 189, 213 (Beghe, J., dissenting), affd.
153 F.3d 302 (6th Cir. 1998); see also Am. Radiator & Standard
Sanitary Corp. v. United States, 162 Ct. Cl. 106, 318 F.2d 915,
920 (1963).3 Petitioners did not, through the June 18
conversation, give respondent adequate notice that they had
claims for refund or of the grounds underlying such claims.
3 The facts of this are distinguishable from those of Am.
Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. v. United States, 162 Ct. Cl.
106, 318 F.2d 915, 921 (1963), in which the Court of Claims found
an informal claim for refund with respect to retroactive
inventory adjustments where the revenue agent had knowledge of
the taxpayer’s desire for a refund, the approximate total amount
of the refund expected, and the cost of the later year inventory
replacement giving rise to the earlier year adjustments and
refunds. The equivalent of that last component is missing in
this case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011