Barbara Deaton - Page 13

                                        - 13 -                                        
          section 6513(b)(2), which, by virtue of that status, constitutes            
          a payment as a matter of law.  In so doing, we declined to follow           
          England v. United States, 760 F. Supp. 186 (D. Kan. 1991), and              
          Batton v. United States, 60 AFTR 2d 87-5983, 87-2 USTC par. 9622            
          (D. Md. 1987), in which the respective courts accepted that                 
          argument based on the reference to “amount properly estimated as            
          tax” in section 1.6081-4(a)(4), Income Tax Regs.7  In particular,           
          we stated:                                                                  
               We conclude that the language “amount properly                         
               estimated as tax” under section 1.6081-4(a)(4), Income                 
               Tax Regs., is not synonymous with, nor covered by, the                 
               language regarding estimated tax payments under                        
               sections 6015[8] and 6513(b)(2).  The operative                        
               provision, therefore, of section 6513(b)(2) (that deems                
               any and all payments of estimated taxes as paid, as a                  
               matter of law, as of the due date of the related income                
               tax returns) is not applicable to petitioners’                         
               remittance under section 1.6081-4(a)(4), Income Tax                    
               Regs., of the $25,000 submitted with petitioners’ Form                 
               4868 extension request.                                                
          Risman v. Commissioner, supra at 202.  We looked instead to the             


               7  In an earlier case, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth              
          Circuit had concluded, without specific reference to the language           
          of sec. 1.6081-4(a)(4), Income Tax Regs., that sec. 6513(b)(2)              
          applied to the Form 4868 remittance at issue in that case.                  
          Weigand v. United States, 760 F.2d 1072, 1074 (10th Cir. 1985).             
          We construed Weigand as assuming, without holding, that a Form              
          4868 remittance is a payment of estimated income tax within the             
          purview of sec. 6513(b)(2).  Risman v. Commissioner, 100 T.C.               
          191, 200 n.4 (1993).  The district court in England v. United               
          States, 760 F. Supp. 186 (D. Kan. 1991) (which was appealable to            
          the Tenth Circuit) apparently had reached the same conclusion, as           
          it did not rely on Weigand in its analysis.                                 
               8  Former sec. 6015 required individuals in certain                    
          circumstances to file annual declarations of estimated income               
          tax.                                                                        




Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011