- 10 -
v. Swift & Co. The Court held the deference required
depends on the ‘thoroughness evident in [the agency’s]
consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its
consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and
all those factors which give it the power to persuade
* * *’. [Omohundro v. United States, 300 F.3d 1065,
1067-1068; citations omitted.]
The court in Omohundro believed that Rev. Rul. 76-511
“commands deference” because its reasoning is valid, it is
consistent with later IRS pronouncements, and its interpretation
of section 6511(a) is supported by the legislative history of the
statute. The court held that under section 6511(a), a taxpayer’s
claim for credit or refund is timely if it is filed within 3
years from the date his or her income tax return is filed,
regardless of when the return was filed. Omohundro v. United
States, supra at 1068.
Rev. Rul. 76-511, 1976-2 C.B. 428, likewise commands
deference and is applicable to this case, since the fact pattern
is the same. The facts recited in the ruling are briefly as
follows:
During 1972, the taxpayer’s employer withheld income tax,
which under section 6513(b)(1) was deemed to have been paid on
April 15, 1973. Three years and 15 days after the due date, on
April 30, 1976, the taxpayer filed his 1972 return on which he
claimed an overpayment. The IRS ruled that the taxpayer had
filed a valid claim for refund within the 3-year period of
limitations prescribed by section 6511(a), but under section
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011