- 5 -
petitioners’ 1994 account; respondent has cited, and we are aware
of, no authority for this action. Cf. Hill v. United States, 263
F.2d 885, 887 (3d Cir. 1959) (“We do not have any doubt that in
the ordinary case where a taxpayer fills out his form, makes out
his check and sends them in that he intends the remittance to be
in discharge of his liability and that the Collector receives it
in the same way.”); Baimbridge v. United States, 335 F. Supp. 2d
1084, 1095 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (“Delivery of a check with a tax
return is generally sufficient to designate the payment toward
the liability for the period of the return.”). Petitioners’ $611
payment fully satisfied their 1997 tax liability.4 Accordingly,
respondent’s proposed levy is not sustained insofar as it relates
to petitioners’ 1997 tax year.
Petitioners have not challenged their underlying tax
liabilities for 1994 and 1996. At trial, petitioner husband made
a generalized request for relief from penalties and interest.
Petitioners have not alleged, however, and the record does not
reveal any basis for granting petitioners any relief in this
regard with respect to their 1994 and 1996 tax years.
Petitioners have not otherwise alleged, and the record does not
4 We are mindful that the Secretary may credit an
overpayment, including interest thereon, against any Federal
income tax liability of the person who made the overpayment.
Sec. 6402(a). Petitioners, however, did not overpay their 1997
Federal income tax liability.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011