DocketNumber: TC-MD 080254C.
Judges: DAN ROBINSON, Magistrate.
Filed Date: 6/12/2008
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
Plaintiffs filed their 2005 state income tax return on October 15, 2007. That return, due by April 17, 2006, (because April 15 was a Saturday, which automatically extends the deadline to *Page 2 the following Monday) reported a net self-assessed tax of $6,690, withholding of $3,781, and a credit of $4,430 from Plaintiffs' 2004 return, generating a reported refund of $1,521.
Defendant reviewed Plaintiffs' 2005 return, determined it was late and made the following adjustments:
1) assessed a 25 percent penalty in the amount of $727.25;
2) applied the $4,430 tax year 2004 refund as a credit as of December 1, 2006 (the date the 2004 return was filed);
3) imposed interest of $126.60 on the unpaid balance of $2,909 ($6,690 self-reported tax minus $3,781 withholding) that existed from the 2005 return due date of April 17, 2006, through December 1, 2006 (when the 2004 return was filed requesting credit of the refund be applied to 2005); and
4) determined that there was an overpayment of $667.15, generating a refund in that amount.
Plaintiffs contend that the $4,430 excess withholding from 2004 should be automatically applied to 2005 as a timely payment, and, when added to the 2005 withholding of $3,781, generates a refund of $1,521 (based on a tax of $6,690). That amount is $853.85 more than the $667.15 refund Defendant issued. Henry emphasized at the May 5, 2008, hearing that the state had Plaintiffs' money — from withholding in 2004 — and that Plaintiffs' late return did not "cost the state any money." In other words, Defendant had the use of the money ($4,430 from excess withholding in 2004) before Plaintiffs' 2005 taxes were due, and Plaintiffs should be entitled to the benefit of having the excess credited to 2005, regardless of the fact that the 2004 return requesting that the refund be credited to 2005 was not filed until after the 2005 return was due.
Fery responded that each year stands on its own, and that the 2004 withholding could not be applied as an estimated tax payment for 2005 until the date that the 2004 return was filed. *Page 3 It is not until a return is filed, argues Fery, that excess payments take the form of a refund, and it is only by statute that an overpayment from one year can be applied to another. Moreover, Defendant's administrative rule discusses the application of overpayments in the case of a delinquent return, and it limits the application of an overpayment to the date the return reporting the excess payment (i.e., refund) and requesting application of that excess to another tax year, is filed. The court agrees with Defendant's view of the rule, which implements a statute containing similar restrictions, as explained below.
"(1) If a taxpayer fails to file a report or return or fails to pay a tax by the date on which the filing or payment is due, the Department of Revenue shall add to the amount required to be shown as tax on the report or return a delinquency penalty of *Page 4 five percent of the amount of the unpaid tax.
"(2) If the failure to file a report or return continues for a period in excess of three months after the due date:
"(a) (A) There shall be added to the amount of tax required to be shown on the report or return a failure to file penalty of 20 percent of the amount of the tax[.]"
(Emphasis added.)
Because Plaintiffs' 2005 return was filed more than three months after the April 17, 2006, due date provided in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 6072(a), made applicable to the Oregon state return by ORS
The application of an overpayment of taxes from an earlier year to a later year is governed by statute, specifically ORS
"When the taxpayer files a delinquent return, and the tax shown due is less than the amount of withholding and prepayments, the taxpayer may apply the overpayment to an estimated tax account for a subsequent year. Overpayments shall be applied to the extent approved on review and as of the date the return is filed."
(Emphasis added.)
Based on the statute and administrative rule, Plaintiffs were not entitled to have the $4,430 refund from 2004 applied to their 2005 tax liability until the 2004 return was filed on December 1, 2006. At that point, the 2005 return was not yet filed, and was approximately seven and one-half months overdue. Moreover, there was an unpaid tax due of $2,909 as of the April 17, 2006, filing deadline for the 2005 return.
ORS
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiffs' appeal requesting a refund for the 2005 tax year in the amount of $853.85, based on a credited overpayment of $4,430 from 2004, is denied;
IT IS FURTHER DECIDED that Plaintiffs' request for cancellation of the 25 percent penalty imposed by Defendant because Plaintiffs' 2005 return was filed more than three months after the statutory due date, is denied; and
IT IS FURTHER DECIDED that Plaintiffs' request for cancellation of the interest Defendant imposed on Plaintiffs' unpaid tax balance for the 2005 tax year is denied.
Dated this _____ day of June 2008.
If you want to appeal this Decision, file a Complaint in the RegularDivision of the Oregon Tax Court, by mailing to: 1163 State Street,Salem, OR 97301-2563; or by hand delivery to: Fourth Floor, 1241 StateStreet, Salem, OR. Your Complaint must be submitted within 60 days after the date of theDecision or this Decision becomes final and cannot be changed. This document was signed by Magistrate Dan Robinson on June 12, 2008.The Court filed and entered this document on June 12, 2008.
*Page 1"If there is an overpayment of income taxes for the taxable year, and the taxpayer elects on a return * * * for that taxable year filed after the due date (determined with regard to any extension of time for filing) to have the overpayment credited against an installment of estimated tax for a subsequent taxable year, the overpayment shall be credited against that installment of estimated tax. The amount credited shall be deemed paid as estimated tax on the date the return was filed." (Emphasis added.)