Fine v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue , Docket No. 2493-76.

CourtUnited States Tax Court
Writing for the CourtFEATHERSTON
Citation70 T.C. 684
PartiesBETSY FINE, PETITIONER v. COMMISSIONER of INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT
Docket NumberDocket No. 2493-76.
Decision Date16 August 1978

70 T.C. 684

BETSY FINE, PETITIONER
v.
COMMISSIONER of INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT

Docket No. 2493-76.

United States Tax Court

Filed August 16, 1978.


In 1971, petitioner's husband, Maynard, was assessed with a 100-percent penalty for failure to collect and pay over certain employment taxes, and the assessment was not paid. Petitioner and Maynard filed joint income tax returns for 1969 and 1972. On Apr. 16, 1973, petitioner and Maynard filed an application for tentative refund from carryback of net operating loss, claiming an overpayment for 1969 as a result of an alleged net operating loss in 1972. The application was tentatively allowed and the resulting overpayment for 1969 was credited against Maynard's unpaid penalty assessment. Subsequently, on audit of the joint income tax return for 1972, respondent determined that petitioner and Maynard did not incur a net operating loss in that year. Respondent further determined a deficiency in petitioner's 1969 income tax in the amount of the credit applied against Maynard's employment tax penalty assessment. Held, in order to recover the credit resulting from the tentative allowance of the carryback adjustment applied against Maynard's employment tax penalty assessment, respondent was authorized to follow the deficiency procedures prescribed by sec. 6212, I.R.C. 1954.

[70 T.C. 685]

Arnold S. Schafer, for the petitioner.

Deborah S. Hack, for the respondent.

OPINION
FEATHERSTON, Judge:

Respondent determined a deficiency in the amount of $3,874.84 in petitioner's Federal income tax for 1969. The issue here involves the procedure to be followed by the Internal Revenue Service in recovering a credit tentatively allowed as a carryback adjustment in respect of petitioner's joint return for 1969, applied on an unpaid employment tax penalty liability of her husband, and later shown by an audit to have been erroneous. Specifically, the issue is whether the recovery must be effected by reversing the credit and reinstating the unpaid assessment or whether the deficiency procedures prescribed by section 62121 may be followed.

All the facts have been stipulated.

Petitioner Betsy Fine (hereinafter petitioner) was a legal resident of Culver City, Calif., when she filed her petition and amended petition. She and her husband, Maynard Fine (Maynard), filed joint Federal income tax returns for 1969 and 1972.

As the responsible officer of Wheatfield Motor Inn, Maynard failed to collect and pay over withholding taxes for the period June 1970 to March 1971, and on September 29, 1971, he was assessed a 100-percent penalty in the sum of $28,824.14. Maynard consented to the assessment but later contested it in a bankruptcy proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. On January 28, 1976, an order dismissed the cause with prejudice. The assessment was Maynard's individual liability.

On their joint Federal income tax return for 1972, petitioner

[70 T.C. 686]

and Maynard reported a net operating loss. On April 16, 1973, they filed Form 1045, Application for Tentative Refund from Carryback of Net Operating Loss or Unused Investment Credit, claiming their alleged 1972 loss as a net operating loss carryback to 1969. Respondent granted the tentative carryback allowance in the amount of $3,874.84, the amount previously paid as tax on petitioner's and Maynard's joint income tax return for 1969. The full amount of the 1969 tax was paid from Maynard's income. Petitioner did not have any income in 1969.

On June 4, 1973, respondent, instead of issuing a cash refund, credited the $3,874.84 to the unpaid balance of the September 29, 1971, employment tax penalty assessment against Maynard. Subsequently, in the audit of the taxable year 1972 and the tentative carryback of the 1972 net operating loss, respondent determined that petitioner and Maynard did not incur a net operating loss in 1972. In order to recover the credit allowed against Maynard's employment tax penalty assessment, respondent determined that there is a deficiency of $3,874.84 in petitioner's joint income tax liability for 1969.

Petitioner does not challenge respondent's determination that she and Maynard did not incur a net operating loss in 1972. Nor does she challenge the Internal Revenue Service's right to credit any overpayment for 1969 against Maynard's individual liability for the employment tax penalty assessment.2 She recognizes that she had no property interest in the overpayment for 1969 generated by the tentative application of the 1972 carryback.3 Petitioner maintains, however, that she did not receive any economic benefit from the overpayment tentatively allowed and applied on Maynard's individual liability. She argues, therefore,

[70 T.C. 687]

that respondent's appropriate remedy, upon completing the audit of the 1972 joint return, was to reverse the credit of the 1969 overpayment to Maynard's employment tax penalty liability and to restore that amount as a credit to discharge the joint liability of herself and Maynard for 1969, created by the tentatively allowed carryback, citing Commissioner v. Newport Industries, Inc., 121 F.2d 655 (7th Cir. 1941), revg. 40 B.T.A. 978 (1939).

We hold for respondent.

The Code provisions on the tentative allowance of net operating loss carryback adjustments and the manner in which any erroneous allowances are to be adjusted are specific and detailed. Section 6411(a) provides that a taxpayer who has incurred a net operating loss may file an application for a tentative carryback adjustment “of the tax for the prior taxable year affected by a net operating loss carryback provided in section 172(b).” Section 6411(b) contemplates that the Internal Revenue Service will make a “limited examination of the application” and determine “the amount of the decrease in the tax attributable to such carryback...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Pesch v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue , Docket Nos. 16609-79
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • January 25, 1982
    ...pursuant to applications under section 6411. Midland Mortgage Co. v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 902, 905-906 (1980); Fine v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 684, 687-688 (1978); Herman Bennett Co. v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 506, 510-511 (1975); Neri v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 767, 770-771 (1970); Polachek v. ......
  • Acme Steel Company v. Commissioner, Docket No. 7885-94.
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • April 28, 2003
    ...supra at 117; Midland Mortgage Co. v. Commissioner [Dec. 36,779], 73 T.C. 902, 905-906 (1980); Fine v. Commissioner [Dec. 35,341], 70 T.C. 684, 687-688 (1978). These three methods are: (1) Assessment of the deficiency attributable to a tentative carryback adjustment as if due to a mathemati......
  • Midland Mortg. Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 6742-78.
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • February 26, 1980
    ...a suit for an erroneous refund, or to assess a deficiency as if it were a mathematical error under sec. 6213(b). Fine v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 684 (1978). Here, however, pursuant to sec. 6212(c), the prior Tax Court proceedings involving the same taxable years foreclosed the issuance of a s......
  • Gordon v. U.S., No. 84-3094
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • April 15, 1985
    ...on them, by the express terms of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6013(d)(3). Both parties argued extensively on appeal as to whether Fine v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 684 (1978), a case with facts somewhat similar to the present case, is sufficiently analogous to dictate a judgment in favor of the Government, w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Pesch v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue , Docket Nos. 16609-79
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • January 25, 1982
    ...pursuant to applications under section 6411. Midland Mortgage Co. v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 902, 905-906 (1980); Fine v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 684, 687-688 (1978); Herman Bennett Co. v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 506, 510-511 (1975); Neri v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 767, 770-771 (1970); Polachek v. ......
  • Acme Steel Company v. Commissioner, Docket No. 7885-94.
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • April 28, 2003
    ...supra at 117; Midland Mortgage Co. v. Commissioner [Dec. 36,779], 73 T.C. 902, 905-906 (1980); Fine v. Commissioner [Dec. 35,341], 70 T.C. 684, 687-688 (1978). These three methods are: (1) Assessment of the deficiency attributable to a tentative carryback adjustment as if due to a mathemati......
  • Midland Mortg. Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 6742-78.
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • February 26, 1980
    ...a suit for an erroneous refund, or to assess a deficiency as if it were a mathematical error under sec. 6213(b). Fine v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 684 (1978). Here, however, pursuant to sec. 6212(c), the prior Tax Court proceedings involving the same taxable years foreclosed the issuance of a s......
  • Gordon v. U.S., No. 84-3094
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • April 15, 1985
    ...on them, by the express terms of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6013(d)(3). Both parties argued extensively on appeal as to whether Fine v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 684 (1978), a case with facts somewhat similar to the present case, is sufficiently analogous to dictate a judgment in favor of the Government, w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT