- 70 -
Thirdly, it is not at all clear as to how the “use of money”
principle should apply to the $40,000 paid with the offer in
compromise.
A. Avon Products involved payments of tax. The instant
case, however, involves a deposit. See Keith v. Commissioner, 35
T.C. 1130, 1136 (1961). Unlike payments, deposits are set aside
“in special suspense accounts established for depositing money
received when no assessment is then outstanding against the
taxpayer.” Rosenman v. United States, 323 U.S. 658, 662 (1945).
“The receipt by the Government of moneys under such an
arrangement carries no more significance than would the giving of
a surety bond.” Id. Deposits can be returned to the taxpayer
upon request at anytime before respondent is entitled to assess
the tax. See Rev. Proc. 84-58, 1984-2 C.B. 501. Because of
this, respondent does not have unrestricted use of the money, as
respondent does with payments.
B. Neither respondent nor petitioners have any obligation
to pay interest during the period in which respondent holds a
deposit. See Rosenman v. United States, 323 U.S. at 663-664;
Rev. Proc. 84-58, 1984-2 C.B. 501. The purpose of interest,
however, is “to compensate the Government for delay in payment of
a tax,” or to compensate the taxpayer for the use of the
taxpayer’s money. Avon Products, Inc. v. United States, 588 F.2d
at 343. Thus, the absence of an obligation to pay interest is
Page: Previous 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011