- 8 -
22, 2005, the date of his deemed claim, petitioner is not
entitled to a refund (or a credit) of his 2001 overpayment. Sec.
6511(b)(2)(B).
Petitioner contends that the substitute for return under
section 6020(b) should be “counted” as his return. However, this
Court has expressly held that a substitute for return prepared by
the Commissioner pursuant to section 6020(b) does not constitute
a return filed by the taxpayer for purposes of section 6511.
Healer v. Commissioner, supra at 321-324.
Petitioner also contends that his delinquency was caused
principally by his confusion regarding how a $5,000 option
payment on a movie contract should be reported. Although we are
well aware of the intricacies of the Internal Revenue Code, the
fact remains that, at the very least, petitioner could have
timely filed his return and amended it later when he had resolved
the reporting matter, particularly given that the option payment
was less than 5 percent of his total income.6
Finally, petitioner contends that it would be unfair,
particularly in view of respondent’s acceptance of his delinquent
return and complete concession of the deficiency and additions to
tax, to bar payment of his refund. Suffice it to say that the
United States Supreme Court has clearly instructed that
limitations on allowance of refunds and credits prescribed by
6 We recall that petitioner’s return was prepared by a
C.P.A. affiliated with an accounting firm.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007