- 18 -
day when it would make a difference in the outcome of a case
before us.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, we do revisit Risman for the
limited purpose of addressing (and rejecting) respondent’s
technical argument that, due to the repeal of the additional
statutory language we examined in Risman, our analysis therein is
no longer viable. Had our analysis rested solely on the specific
wording of those provisions (i.e., former sections 6015 and 6152
and section 6081(b), see supra part I.B.2.b.ii. and note 9),
respondent’s argument might have some force.12 However, quite
apart from our analysis of those provisions, we made the
following general observations:
Initially, we note an obvious and significant
difference between estimated tax payments * * * and a
payment of the estimated total tax liability * * * with
a Form 4868 extension request. Estimated tax is a form
of prepaid tax which is submitted with a Form 1040-ES
in quarterly installments throughout the taxable year *
* *. By the statutory due date for the filing of a tax
return (in this case April 15, 1982) and at the time a
taxpayer attempts to estimate his or her total Federal
income tax liability for purposes of obtaining an
extension of time to file a tax return under section
6081, the date for making estimated tax payments for
the prior year * * * has expired.
Risman v. Commissioner, supra at 199; see also sec. 6654(b)(2)
(interest charge on calendar year taxpayer’s underpayment of a
12 Even if our analysis had been so limited, respondent
does not suggest that Congress repealed or amended those
provisions (in three separate pieces of legislation passed by
three different Congresses) in order to clarify the scope of sec.
6513(b)(2).
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011