Yancy K. Young - Page 3

                                        - 2 -                                         
               Respondent determined a deficiency of $500 in petitioner’s             
          2000 Federal income tax.  The issue is whether an erroneous                 
          refund issued to petitioner is a gift from respondent.                      
          Petitioner resided in Huber Heights, Ohio, at the time the                  
          petition was filed.                                                         
               This case was submitted fully stipulated under Rule 122, and           
          the applicable facts may be summarized as follows.2  In preparing           
          his 2000 Federal income tax return, petitioner, on line 6c(1) of            
          Form 1040A, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, listed “Yancy L.             
          Young” as his dependent and checked Box 6c(4) showing Yancy as a            
          qualifying child for the child tax credit.  Petitioner, however,            
          did not claim a child care credit on the return.  Respondent                
          recalculated petitioner’s tax liability to reflect the child tax            
          credit and refunded $500 to petitioner.  Subsequently, respondent           
          examined petitioner’s return and disallowed the child tax credit            
          because Yancy was not a qualifying child.                                   
               Petitioner concedes that he is not entitled to the child tax           
          credit.3  Petitioner contends that respondent’s erroneous refund            
          was a gift to him.  While respondent has the authority to make a            




               2  The facts are not in dispute and the issue is primarily             
          one of law.  Sec. 7491, concerning burden of proof, has no                  
          bearing on this case.                                                       
               3   A deficiency exists because the erroneously issued                 
          refund is considered a rebate under sec. 6211(a)(2).  Laughlin v.           
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-122.                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011