- 71 -
yet another indication that deposits do not fit neatly into the
“use of money” gloss on sections 6601 and 6611.
C. The parties have not discussed Rev. Proc. 84-58, 1984-2
C.B. 501, 503, which provides in pertinent part as follows:
Sec. 5. INTEREST
.01 * * * If the remittance is held as a deposit in the
nature of a cash bond, but is returned at the taxpayer’s
request, and a deficiency is later assessed for that period
and type of tax, the taxpayer will not receive credit for
the period in which the funds were held as a deposit. * * *
Petitioners withdrew the offer in compromise and eventually
received back their $40,000. Under these circumstances, we do
not have to deal with any possible implications of the last
sentence of section 5.01 of Rev. Proc. 84-58. Nor do we have to
consider whether the fact that petitioners were pro se at the
time they withdrew the offer in compromise and that the
withdrawal was at respondent’s agent’s suggestion has any impact
on the application of that last sentence. See generally Perkins
v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 749, 760 (1989).
On this record we conclude that we shall not direct
respondent to abate interest or recompute interest to take
account of the $40,000 that petitioners paid in connection with
their offer in compromise.
We hold for respondent on this issue.
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