DocketNumber： Docket Nos. 4879-79, 4880-79.
Citation Numbers： 44 T.C.M. 1323, 1982 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 174, 1982 T.C. Memo. 581
Filed Date： 9/30/1982
Status： Non-Precedential
Modified Date： 11/21/2020
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
PARKER, Additions to Year Deficiencies the Tax 1975 $2,596.83 $129.84 1976 3,574.91 178.75 1977 5,044.75 252.24
The parties having disposed of the family trust issues raised in the statutory notices, the only issue before the Court is whether or not petitioners are liable for interest on1982 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 174">*175 the amounts agreed upon.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Most of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the exhibits attached thereto are incorporated herein by this reference.
Petitioners, husband and wife, resided in Denver, Colorado, at the time they filed their petitions in these consolidated cases. For the year 1975 petitioner Don H. Rodgers timely filed an individual Federal income tax return, and for the years 1976 and 1977 petitioners timely filed joint Federal income tax returns.
The substantive tax issues raised during the audit involved the Don H. Rodgers Equity Trust. The family trust issues have been settled by the parties. Petitioner Don H. Rodgers concedes that he is liable for tax in the amount of $2,197 for 1975 and for an addition to the tax pursuant to section 6653(a) in the amount of $110. Petitioners concede that they are jointly and severally liable for taxes in the amounts of $2,718 for 1976 and $3,750 for 1977 and for additions to the taxes pursuant to section 6653(a) in the amounts of $136 and $188, respectively.
During the audit petitioners tendered a check dated July 10, 1978, to respondent. That check in the total1982 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 174">*176 amount of $6,458.82 bore a notation "for remainder of taxes due 1975, 1976 & 1977." Petitioners apparently made an error in their calculation of the remaining amount of tax due for the years involved. In any event, the figure of $6,458.82 was not the correct amount of tax due and owing for the years 1975 through 1977. On or about August 28, 1978, the internal revenue agent handling the audit returned that check to petitioners uncashed.
The record is not entirely clear in regard to the circumstances surrounding the return of petitioners' check. Apparently petitioner Don H. Rodgers requested the return of that check because he had submitted it on the condition that respondent's computation for additional taxes due was equal to the amount of the check, and that was not the case. In any event, either because he was under the impression that the revenue agent would not permit him to make a partial payment or because he became angry over the progress of the audit and decided to avail himself of the legal services that he regarded as a part of the family trust package he had purchased, or both, petitioner Don H. Rodgers did not thereafter pay or attempt to pay any portion of the taxes1982 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 174">*177 for the years 1975-1977 due and owing from him and his wife.
OPINION
Petitioner Don H. Rodgers (hereinafter petitioner) argues that since he made an effort to pay the tax during the audit, albeit an unsuccessful effort, it would be unfair to require him to pay interest on the deficiencies.
1982 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 174">*178 Although we have no jurisdiction to decide the interest issue, we append the following comments for the benefit of petitioner's understanding of his situation. Basically, interest is "the amount which one has contracted to pay for the use of borrowed money" or "compensation for the use or forebearance of money."
The mere fact that petitioner made an unsuccessful attempt to pay part of the taxes back in 1978 neither deprived petitioner of the use of his money nor gave the Government the use of the funds. There is no basi in law or1982 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 174">*179 fact for tolling the running of interest on the deficiencies. Assuming that petitioner did receive erroneous advice from the revenue agent as to whether he could pay part or all of the disputed tax during the audit,
1982 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 174">*180 In accordance with the parties' stipulation,
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended and in effect during the taxable years in issue, unless otherwise noted.↩
2. The parties stipulated that "the sole issue which the petitioners want considered by the Court is whether the tender of a check by the petitioners in 1978 as full payment of their taxes for the years 1975, 1976 and 1977 should stop the running of interest on any deficiencies for those years even though the check was subsequently returned to the petitioners, and though the check was never cashed by the respondent." From petitioner's testimony at the trial, the Court is satisfied that he was arguing that interest be tolled only as to the amount of the check tendered, the $6,458.82, not for the full amount due and owing.↩
3. The Tax Court is not deprived of jurisdiction over a deficiency if the amount of tax is paid after mailing of a notice of deficiency. Section 6213(b)(4). There may be problems, however, in regard to payments r deposits made before that time. See
Deputy, Administratrix v. Du Pont , 60 S. Ct. 363 ( 1940 )
Dixon v. United States , 85 S. Ct. 1301 ( 1965 )
Standard Oil Company (New Jersey) v. Denis J. McMahon ... , 244 F.2d 11 ( 1957 )
Old Colony Railroad v. Commissioner , 52 S. Ct. 211 ( 1932 )
alfred-fortugno-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-silvia-fortugno-v , 353 F.2d 429 ( 1965 )
Automobile Club of Mich. v. Commissioner , 77 S. Ct. 707 ( 1957 )
COMMISSIONER OF INT. REVENUE v. Kilpatrick's Estate , 140 F.2d 887 ( 1944 )