Acme Steel Company (formerly known as Interlake, Inc., and now known as Acme Metals, Inc.) and Consolidated Subsidiaries - Page 59

                                       - 59 -                                         
          the exclusive means by which respondent could recover tentative             
          refunds issued in error.  We cited the committee report                     
          accompanying the predecessor to section 6411, which stated that             
          in recovering erroneous tentative refunds, “the Commissioner will           
          usually proceed by way of a deficiency notice in the ordinary               
          manner, and the taxpayer may litigate any disputed issues before            
          the Tax Court.”  Id. at 771 (citing H. Rept. 849, 79th Cong., 1st           
          Sess. (1945), 1945 C.B. at 583).                                            
               In Collegiate Cap & Gown v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 449, 455             
          (1972), we found that the purposes of section 6411 are better               
          served when the remedies available to the Commissioner to recover           
          tentative refunds issued in error are construed broadly.  We                
          observed that if the Commissioner were unable to use the                    
          deficiency procedure to recover refunds issued pursuant to                  
          section 6411, there would be a “real danger that he would feel              
          compelled to act more cautiously in allowing tentative carryback            
          adjustments.”  Id.  When an application is denied, the taxpayer’s           
          only recourse is to file the more time-consuming ordinary claim             
          for refund, denying a financially troubled taxpayer the quick               
          infusion of cash contemplated by section 6411.                              
               The foregoing cases confirm our conclusion that respondent             
          properly resorted to the deficiency procedures in the case at               
          hand.  We shall not allow petitioner to penalize respondent by              
          erecting a bar against the determination of a deficiency; we                






Page:  Previous  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011