- 11 -
check directs to what year the payment should be applied.10 On
the other hand, as noted in his letter to respondent, petitioner
“believe[s] almost anyone would consider a check sent with a
[return for a] particular year * * * in the exact amount shown as
due on that return, as a clear designation as a payment for * * *
[that year]”. The common sense attractiveness of petitioner’s
observation obscures, to some extent, the reality that respondent
is most certainly not “almost anyone”.
Furthermore, respondent’s application of the proceeds of
the 1999 check, if not entirely consistent with common sense,
complied completely with the procedures contemplated in Rev.
Proc. 2002-26, 2002-1 C.B. 746. Rev. Proc. 2002-26, sec. 3.02,
provides that if the taxpayer does not include specific written
instructions with a voluntarily submitted payment of tax, then
“the Service will apply the payment to periods in the order of
priority that the Service determines will serve its best
interest. The payment will be applied to satisfy the liability
for successive periods in descending order of priority until the
payment is absorbed.” Because petitioner did not, in writing,
specifically instruct respondent as to how he intended the
proceeds of the 1999 check to be applied, respondent was entitled
10 It is unknown whether a Form 1040-V, Payment Voucher, is
included with petitioner’s 1999 return because, although it would
seem to be a good idea to have placed a copy of that return in
the record, neither party did so. Then again, the procedural
history of this case is filled with the absence of good ideas.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007