- 6 -
clear error in judging their weight. Henry v. INS, 74 F.3d 1, 4
(1st Cir. 1996).
The Amended Return and Tax Year 19932
Petitioners argue that they believed that as part of their
settlement of the deficiencies proposed for 1991 through 1994,
the $8,742 overpayment credit claimed on the amended return for
1991 would be applied to their outstanding tax liabilities, in
particular to tax year 1993.3 As petitioners put it, "The
agreement to the disallowance" was signed by them "only in the
context of the overall settlement."
Petitioners argue that if the "disallowed $8,742" was
intended to be paid, in addition to the agreed upon deficiencies,
the total would be more than the original deficiencies proposed
by the Examination division. "No reasonable person would settle
an appeal for more than the original amount appealed," they
argue. The fallacy in this argument is that the deficiency
2RRA 1998 sec. 3001, 112 Stat. 726, added sec. 7491, which
shifts the burden of proof to the Secretary in certain
circumstances. Sec. 7491, however, is applicable to "court
proceedings arising in connection with examinations commencing
after the date of the enactment of this Act." RRA 1998 sec.
3001(c), 112 Stat. 727. The RRA was enacted on July 22, 1998,
while the examination of the 1991 through 1994 years in this case
was in 1997.
3Petitioner Carl Brandon testified that he applied the
$8,742 credit claimed in 1995 on the amended return for 1991
toward payment of the tax liability shown on his 1993 joint
return that was filed in 1996.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011