- 21 -
generally treated as deposits. Blatt v. United States, 34 F.3d
252 (4th Cir. 1994).
Petitioners focus on how the payment was treated
administratively by respondent and how it was initially
represented by petitioners, but petitioners fail to overcome a
fundamental point. Section 6225(a) provides that once a
proceeding in the Tax Court under section 6226 has commenced, no
assessment of a deficiency attributable to any partnership item
may be made before the proceeding in the Tax Court has become
final. Section 6226(e)(1) specifically requires that a partner
may file a readjustment petition in the District Court under
section 6226 only if that partner “deposits” the TEFRA
partnership-related tax liability. As previously stated, Mr.
Greer asserted section 6226 as one of the jurisdictional grounds
for his petition in the Federal District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky. As a result, we find petitioners’ argument
that the remittance in question is an amount collected to be
inconsistent with petitioners’ efforts to obtain section 6226(e)
jurisdiction in District Court, regardless of how respondent may
have initially characterized the payment.
It is clear from the record in the District Court that Mr.
Greer’s counsel sought the repayment. If this repayment was not
the return of a deposit, then it was nevertheless not an erroneous
refund as that term is described in cases such as O’Bryant v.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007