Acme Steel Company (formerly known as Interlake, Inc., and now known as Acme Metals, Inc.) and Consolidated Subsidiaries - Page 54

                                       - 54 -                                         
               In the case at hand, petitioner contends the deficiency                
          procedures are not available to respondent to recover the                   
          tentative refunds on the ground that they are nonrebate refunds             
          because petitioner, as the former common parent, was an                     
          “unauthorized recipient”.                                                   
               Contrary to petitioner’s suggestion otherwise, respondent              
          was not sure who the “authorized representative” of the                     
          affiliated group was when he paid the tentative refunds and was             
          not required to undertake to decide that question prior to paying           
          the tentative refunds.  We therefore disagree that the tentative            
          refunds were paid to petitioner because of any mistake by                   
          respondent that would give rise to petitioner’s receipt of a                
          nonrebate refund.                                                           
               When the Commissioner receives an application for tentative            
          carryback adjustment, he is required within a 90-day period to              
          undertake a “limited examination” of the application.  Sec.                 
          6411(b).  During the limited examination, the Commissioner is               
          expected to uncover ministerial and computational errors and                
          omissions.  The limited examination is not designed to provide a            
          thorough review of all of the facts and statutory and regulatory            
          provisions pertaining to the taxpayer’s right to the refund.                
          Polachek v. Commissioner, 22 T.C. 858, 863-865 (1954).  The                 
          review of the facts and relevant statutory and regulatory                   








Page:  Previous  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011