Daniel C. Greer and Winnie L. Greer - Page 21

                                        - 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