- 65 -
We reject petitioner’s argument because it is based on false
premises. As previously discussed, respondent paid petitioner
the tentative refunds pursuant to petitioner’s application for
tentative carryback adjustment at a time when respondent had not
finally determined which affiliated group was the continuation of
the prespinoff affiliated group. Respondent paid the tentative
refunds by depositing the funds in an account maintained by
petitioner pursuant to the attached application for electronic
funds transfer, and within the time prescribed by section
6411(b). Respondent later determined that petitioner did not
sustain the CNOL it claimed on its 1986 return and that
petitioner was the continuing common parent of the prespinoff
affiliated group. Even if the latter determination had been
erroneous, which we doubt, it was an erroneous application of the
relevant regulations to the restructuring and spinoff, not a
clerical or computer error.
The tentative refunds paid to petitioner were rebate refunds
to petitioner because they arose from and were attributable to
petitioner’s recalculation of the group’s 1981 and 1984 tax
liabilities. Respondent’s payment of the tentative refunds was
consistent with the requirements of section 6411, and his later
determination of a deficiency was consistent with section 6213.
Page: Previous 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011