- 24 -
remittance at issue. As discussed above, petitioners’ 1993
return suggests that they did not randomly choose the amount of
the 1994 remittance.
5. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain Appeals’
conclusion that petitioners failed to establish their alleged
intent that the 1994 remittance be regarded as a deposit rather
than a payment.
IV. Conclusion
We sustain Appeals’ findings (1) that the 1994 remittance
was a payment rather than a deposit, and (2) that, having been
paid outside the “lookback” period of section 6511(b)(2)(A), the
portion of the 1994 remittance in excess of petitioners’ 1993 tax
liability may not be credited against petitioners’ 1994-96 tax
liabilities. As petitioners have made no other assignments of
error, we sustain Appeals’ determinations to allow the proposed
levy to proceed.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decisions will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Last modified: May 25, 2011