- 8 -
however, that the FICA withholdings for 1984 through 1990 were
“erroneous deposits” of FICA tax for 1984 through 1990 and that
those deposits represent overpayments that can be used to correct
a deficiency or be refunded at any time. Petitioners suggest
that the statute of limitations applicable to claims for a credit
or a refund of tax applies only to payments of tax and not
deposits.4 Even if we were to assume that petitioners are
correct and deposits are not subject to a statute of limitations,
they presented no evidence that they made deposits or that any
FICA taxes were assessed after the applicable period of
limitations had expired.
3(...continued)
Claim.--Claim for credit or refund of an overpayment of
any tax imposed by this title in respect of which tax
the taxpayer is required to file a return shall be
filed by the taxpayer within 3 years from the time the
return was filed or 2 years from the time the tax was
paid, whichever of such periods expires the later, or
if no return was filed by the taxpayer, within 2 years
from the time the tax was paid. * * *
4Petitioners cite Cohen v. United States, 995 F.2d 205 (Fed.
Cir. 1993), Ewing v. United States, 914 F.2d 499 (4th Cir. 1990),
and Harden v. United States, 74 F.3d 1237 (5th Cir. 1995)
(unpublished), for their position that a voluntary remittance to
the IRS before an assessment of tax is made is a deposit and not
a payment of tax, and that no statute of limitations applies to
deposits. However, the critical fact in each of those cases was
that the remitted amounts had not been assessed before the period
of limitations for assessment expired, and the Courts of Appeals
in Cohen and Harden treated the remittances as refundable
deposits. Cf. secs. 6401(a) and 6402(a). In the instant case,
there is no evidence or suggestion that the FICA withholdings
were assessed untimely. We cannot agree that those withholdings
are deposits on the basis of the cases that petitioners cite.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011