- 9 -
(indeed, respondent contends that he has already paid out
petitioners’ claimed overpayment, which includes this $225
amount).4 As previously noted, the tax imposed on petitioners’
2000 income is zero. Accordingly, if we were to find that
respondent never paid out the part of petitioners’ claimed
overpayment attributable to their $225 wage withholding credit,
then, pursuant to section 6401(b), $225 (the excess of $225 over
zero) would be considered an overpayment, at least viewed in
isolation.
Our analysis, however, does not end there, for ultimately,
in determining whether petitioners have made an overpayment, the
question is not how this $225 item should be viewed in isolation
but whether petitioners have made “payment in excess of that
which is properly due.” Jones v. Liberty Glass Co., supra at
531. The answer to that question is clearly no. Although the
tax imposed on petitioners’ 2000 income is zero, there remains an
agreed deficiency of $2,396, due to their erroneously claiming
the EIC on their return. Of that sum, it is undisputed that
$1,725 has been refunded to them or for their benefit. If we
were to assume, as petitioners claim, that the $896 disputed
refund check went astray and that petitioners’ $225 wage
4 Inasmuch as petitioners concede that they were not
entitled to the EIC claimed on their 2000 tax return, the EIC is
not an “allowable” credit and so is not considered in determining
the existence or amount of an overpayment pursuant to sec.
6401(b).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011