Sumiel v. Commissioner

1993 T.C. Memo. 104, 65 T.C.M. 2142, 1993 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 105
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedMarch 24, 1993
DocketDocket No. 15719-91
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1993 T.C. Memo. 104 (Sumiel v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sumiel v. Commissioner, 1993 T.C. Memo. 104, 65 T.C.M. 2142, 1993 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 105 (tax 1993).

Opinion

JAMES AUBREY SUMIEL, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Sumiel v. Commissioner
Docket No. 15719-91
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1993-104; 1993 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 105; 65 T.C.M. (CCH) 2142;
March 24, 1993, Filed
*105 For petitioner: David A. Slacter.
For respondent: Richard D. Fultz.
HAMBLEN

HAMBLEN

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

HAMBLEN, Chief Judge: By statutory notice of deficiency dated April 17, 1991, respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's 1987 Federal income tax and additions to tax as follows:

Additions to tax
DeficiencySec. 6653(a)(1)(A)Sec. 6653(a)(1)(B)Sec. 6651(a)
$ 11,762$ 588.101$ 995.75

By statutory notice of deficiency dated April 24, 1991, respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's 1988 Federal income tax and additions to tax as follows:

Additions to tax
DeficiencySec. 6653(a)(1)Sec. 6651(a)Sec. 6654(a)
$ 10,613$ 530.65$ 1,005.50$ 210

Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the taxable year at issue, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of*106 Practice and Procedure.

After concessions, 1 the sole issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to an overpayment of his 1988 income tax, or whether the statutory time limitations of sections 6511 and 6512(b)(2) proscribe such a determination.

OPINION

This case was submitted fully stipulated under Rule 122. The stipulation and attached exhibits are incorporated by this reference. Petitioner resided in Silver Spring, Maryland, at the time the petition was filed in this case. Petitioner did not timely file a Federal income tax return for 1988, nor did he file a request for an extension of time to file his 1988 tax return.

During the taxable year 1988 petitioner was employed by the U.S. House of Representatives. During 1988, petitioner earned $ 40,677 in wages and $ 7,311 in self-employment income. As a result of Federal income tax withholding from his salary by his employer, petitioner paid*107 a total of $ 6,591.12 of his 1988 tax liability. No income tax was withheld from the self-employment income. The parties have agreed that petitioner's correct 1988 income tax liability was $ 4,872. Accordingly, there was an overpayment in the amount of $ 1,719.12.

On April 24, 1991, respondent issued a notice of deficiency to petitioner relating to his 1988 income tax liability. As of that date, petitioner had not filed an income tax return for 1988 or a claim for refund for 1988. However, on April 13, 1992, petitioner delivered his 1988 income tax return to the Internal Revenue Service in Wheaton, Maryland, reflecting an overpayment of $ 3,076. Petitioner filed his petition with this Court on July 15, 1991.

Under section 6512(b)(1), this Court has jurisdiction to determine the existence and amount of any overpayment of tax to be credited or refunded to a taxpayer. 2Allen v. Commissioner, 99 T.C.     (1992); Galuska v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 661 (1992). However, section 6512(b)(2) (now section 6512(b)(3) and hereinafter cited as (b)(3)) limits the amount of allowable credit or refund based on the time of payment of the tax. Section*108 6512(b)(3) provides that no credit or refund shall be allowed, unless this Court determines that the portion was paid by the taxpayer at or during one of the three time periods specified in subparagraphs (A), (B), or (C). There is no dispute between the parties that subparagraph 6512(b)(3)(B) is the applicable provision in this case.

Section 6512(b)(3)(B) provides that:

No such credit or refund shall be allowed or made of any portion of the tax unless the Tax Court determines as part of its decision that such portion was paid * * * within the period which would be applicable under section 6511(b)(2), (c), *109 or (d), if on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency a claim had been filed (whether or not filed) stating the grounds upon which the Tax Court finds that there is an overpayment, * * *. [Emphasis added.]

Petitioner, therefore, must show that the tax was paid within the periods applicable under section 6511(b)(2), (c), or (d).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Domtar Newsprint Sales Limited v. The United States
435 F.2d 563 (Court of Claims, 1970)
White v. Commissioner
72 T.C. 1126 (U.S. Tax Court, 1979)
Berry v. Commissioner
97 T.C. No. 23 (U.S. Tax Court, 1991)
Galuska v. Commissioner
98 T.C. No. 45 (U.S. Tax Court, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1993 T.C. Memo. 104, 65 T.C.M. 2142, 1993 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sumiel-v-commissioner-tax-1993.