David Bruce Billings - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
          Commissioner, 120 T.C. 62, 66 (2003).  Understanding why the                
          Billingses owed tax but had no “deficiency” after they filed                
          their amended return requires a bit of explanation:  Section                
          6211(a) defines a “deficiency” as the “amount by which the tax              
          imposed * * * exceeds * * * the amount shown as the tax by the              
          taxpayer upon his return.”  (Emphasis added.)  The Code itself              
          doesn’t tell us what effect the filing of an amended return has,            
          but the related regulation does.  It states that “[a]ny amount              
          shown as additional tax on an ‘amended return’ * * * filed after            
          the due date of the return, shall be treated as an amount shown             
          by the taxpayer ‘upon his return’ for purposes of computing the             
          amount of the deficiency.”  Sec. 301.6211-1(a), Proced. & Admin.            
          Regs.  Because the Billingses’ amended 1999 return was filed well           
          after April 15, 2000, and the Commissioner accepted that return,            
          the increase in tax that it showed has to be treated as an amount           
          shown on their return.                                                      
               That left Billings able to look only to subsection (f) for             
          relief, and when the Commissioner denied it to him, left him with           
          the problem of where to seek judicial review.  He filed in our              
          Court and, under our decision in Ewing I, he was right to do so             
          because we had held that section 6015(e) gave us jurisdiction to            
          grant (f) relief in nondeficiency stand-alone cases like his.               
                Ewing I in turn built on two other cases.  The first was              
          Butler, where we had to decide whether we had jurisdiction to               

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011