- 3 -
During the period of petitioner’s delinquency, respondent
prepared a substitute for return under section 6020(b).2
Thereafter, on August 22, 2005, respondent sent petitioner a
notice of deficiency. In the notice, respondent determined a
deficiency in petitioner’s Federal income tax for 2001 of
$25,876, together with additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1)
for failure to file of $1,624.72, under section 6651(a)(2) for
failure to pay of $1,371.99, and under section 6654(a) for
failure to pay estimated tax of $203.71. Respondent’s deficiency
determination was principally attributable to petitioner’s
failure to report wages in the amount of $101,128.3
On October 17, 2005, petitioner filed a petition with the
Court for redetermination of deficiency. In the petition,
petitioner contested respondent’s determinations; petitioner also
claimed that he had overpaid his income tax and was entitled to a
refund in the amount of $1,354.
2 The date that the substitute for return was prepared is
unclear in the record. A transcript of account (Form 4340)
indicates that the substitute for return was prepared in the
month of May 2004; in contrast, the “IRC Section 6020(b) ASFR
Certification” is dated May 30, 2005. However, the date that the
substitute for return was prepared is of no moment. See Healer
v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 316, 321-324 (2000) discussed infra.
3 In the notice, respondent credited petitioner for the
amount withheld from his wages ($18,655) insofar as petitioner’s
ultimate tax liability is concerned. However, we note that the
determination of a statutory deficiency does not take such
withheld amount into account. See sec. 6211(b)(1).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007