Risman v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

Decision Date16 March 1993
Docket NumberNo. 11429–91.,11429–91.
Citation100 T.C. No. 13,100 T.C. 191
PartiesRobert B. RISMAN and Eleanor Risman, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
CourtU.S. Tax Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Robert B. Risman and Eleanor Risman, pro sese.

Marvis A. Knospe, for respondent.

SWIFT, Judge:

Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners' joint Federal income taxes and additions to tax as follows:

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦Additions to Tax¦          ¦          ¦          ¦          ¦       ¦
                +----------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-------¦
                ¦                ¦          ¦Sec.      ¦Sec.      ¦Sec.      ¦Sec.   ¦
                +----------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-------¦
                ¦Year            ¦Deficiency¦6651(a)(1)¦6653(a)(1)¦6653(a)(2)¦6654(a)¦
                +----------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-------¦
                ¦1981            ¦$211,291  ¦$ 49,894  ¦$10,629   ¦*         ¦$ —    ¦
                +----------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-------¦
                ¦1982            ¦222,519   ¦55,630    ¦11,126    ¦*         ¦21,620 ¦
                +----------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-------¦
                ¦1983            ¦162,924   ¦40,731    ¦8,146     ¦*         ¦9,942  ¦
                +----------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-------¦
                ¦1984            ¦611,202   ¦152,801   ¦30,560    ¦*         ¦38,393 ¦
                +----------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-------¦
                ¦1985            ¦387,695   ¦88,174    ¦19,385    ¦*         ¦22,216 ¦
                +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
                

After various concessions, the sole issue remaining for decision is the point in time at which a $25,000 remittance that petitioners made to respondent on April 15, 1982, is to be treated as a “payment” of taxes. If petitioners' $25,000 remittance is treated as a payment of taxes when remitted to respondent on April 15, 1982, a refund of any portion thereof would be barred under the statute of limitations of section 6511, and we would lack jurisdiction under section 6512(b) to grant any refund to petitioners.1 On the other hand, if petitioners' $25,000 remittance is treated as a mere deposit of funds when remitted to respondent on April 15, 1982, such deposit will not be treated as a payment of taxes until June 7, 1989, the date petitioners filed their 1981 joint Federal income tax return, and a refund thereof under the statute of limitations of section 6511 would not be barred, and we would not lack jurisdiction to grant a refund to petitioners under section 6512(b).

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

Petitioners resided in Medford, Massachusetts, at the time their petition was filed.

During 1981 through 1985, petitioner Robert B. Risman (petitioner) was an independent real estate broker and an insurance agent. Petitioner also purchased, managed, and sold residential real estate for his own account.

In April of 1982, petitioners' personal lives and their personal and business records were in a state of disarray and turmoil. Among other things, petitioner had recently changed his place of business, and petitioner's office manager and bookkeeper for over 25 years was terminally ill with cancer. Petitioner's office manager and bookkeeper died in May of 1982.

On April 15, 1982, petitioners timely filed with respondent a Form 4868, Application for Automatic Extension of Time (Form 4868) to file their 1981 joint Federal income tax return. Petitioners enclosed in the envelope that they mailed to respondent with the Form 4868 a $25,000 remittance. At trial, respondent was not able to produce the original Form 4868 that petitioners had mailed to respondent, and neither party was able to produce a copy thereof.

At the time of mailing the $25,000 remittance to respondent, petitioners had no idea what the amount of their 1981 joint Federal income tax liability would be, and the amount of the remittance was arbitrarily determined by petitioner and remitted to respondent so that petitioners would not have to pay penalties and interest when they finally were able to determine their 1981 joint Federal income tax liability and to file their 1981 tax return.

In April of 1982, upon receipt from petitioners of the Form 4868 and of the $25,000 remittance, respondent did not credit petitioners' $25,000 remittance against any tax liability of petitioners, nor did respondent assess any tax liability against petitioners. Rather, respondent credited petitioners' $25,000 remittance to a non-interest-bearing, suspense account in petitioners' names.

Respondent granted petitioners' request for an extension of time until June 15, 1982, to file petitioners' 1981 joint Federal income tax return. As of June 15, 1982, however, petitioners had not filed a 1981 Federal income tax return, and petitioners did not request any further extensions of time to file their 1981 return.

In a letter dated June 27, 1983, petitioner indicated to respondent that the April 15, 1982, $25,000 remittance was not based on any estimate of petitioners' 1981 Federal income tax liability and that petitioner expected that the remittance would be applied “to future taxes owed on the returns I owe”.

Between April 15, 1983, and April 15, 1985, petitioners filed Form 4868 extension requests with regard to the filing of their joint Federal income tax returns for 1982, 1983, and 1984, each of which respondent granted. Petitioners did not submit to respondent any remittances along with these Form 4868 extension requests for 1982, 1983, and 1984.

On April 25, 1985, respondent credited the $25,000 remittance that petitioners had made to respondent on April 15, 1982, to another suspense account (namely, to an “excess collection account”) in petitioners' names.

On May 6, 1986, petitioners filed a Form 4868 extension request for 1985. Petitioners submitted a $10,000 remittance along with the Form 4868 for 1985, on which form petitioners added the following comment: “I realize this is late. Even if extension is not granted please keep the [$10,000 remittance] as deposit toward tax due.”

On February 4, 1988, August 8, 1988, August 9, 1988, and December 13, 1989, petitioners submitted to respondent four additional remittances in the respective amounts of $15,000, $10,000, $15,000, and $30,000. Petitioners did not submit these remittances to respondent with any income tax returns, nor with any Form 4868 extension requests, and none of the remittances were designated for the satisfaction or payment of any particular tax liability. The February 4, 1988, $15,000 remittance was submitted by petitioners along with a notation specifying only that respondent “apply this $15,000 to my account”.

As indicated previously, on June 7, 1989, petitioners filed with respondent their 1981 joint Federal income tax return on which petitioners reported a 1981 joint Federal income tax liability of $1,283, and petitioners claimed thereon an overpayment of $23,717—the April 15, 1982, $25,000 remittance less the $1,283 total tax liability reported on the return.

In June of 1989, upon receipt of petitioners' 1981 joint Federal income tax return, respondent assessed against petitioners for 1981 the $1,283 tax liability reported on the return, and respondent applied or credited $1,283 of petitioners' April 15, 1982, $25,000 remittance in payment of that $1,283 tax liability.

After an audit, respondent, on March 11, 1991, mailed to petitioners a notice of deficiency for each of the years 1981 through 1985, reflecting the following tax deficiencies:

+------------------+
                ¦Year  ¦Amount     ¦
                +------+-----------¦
                ¦1981  ¦$ 211,291  ¦
                +------+-----------¦
                ¦1982  ¦222,519    ¦
                +------+-----------¦
                ¦1983  ¦162,924    ¦
                +------+-----------¦
                ¦1984  ¦611,202    ¦
                +------+-----------¦
                ¦1985  ¦387,695    ¦
                +------+-----------¦
                ¦Total ¦$1,595,631 ¦
                +------------------+
                

On June 7, 1991, petitioners timely filed their petition in this case protesting in its entirety the above notice of deficiency.

After concessions, petitioners and respondent now agree that petitioners' joint Federal income tax liabilities for each of the years 1981 through 1985 (before taking into account certain agreed net operating loss carrybacks) are as follows:

+----------------+
                ¦Year  ¦Amount   ¦
                +------+---------¦
                ¦1981  ¦$ 1,006  ¦
                +------+---------¦
                ¦1982  ¦11,071   ¦
                +------+---------¦
                ¦1983  ¦20,116   ¦
                +------+---------¦
                ¦1984  ¦6,078    ¦
                +------+---------¦
                ¦1985  ¦5,225    ¦
                +------+---------¦
                ¦Total ¦$43,496  ¦
                +----------------+
                

After taking into account the agreed net operating loss carrybacks, petitioners and respondent agree that petitioners' total joint Federal income tax liabilities for the years 1981 through 1985 are as follows:

+----------------+
                ¦Year  ¦Amount   ¦
                +------+---------¦
                ¦1981  ¦$ 1,006  ¦
                +------+---------¦
                ¦1982  ¦1,323    ¦
                +------+---------¦
                ¦1983  ¦3,838    ¦
                +------+---------¦
                ¦1984  ¦6,078    ¦
                +------+---------¦
                ¦1985  ¦5,225    ¦
                +------+---------¦
                ¦Total ¦$17,470  ¦
                +----------------+
                

The following is a summary of the remittances petitioners made to respondent from April of 1982 through December of 1989:

+---------------------------+
                ¦Date              ¦Amount  ¦
                +------------------+--------¦
                ¦April 15, 1982    ¦$ 25,000¦
                +------------------+--------¦
                ¦May 6, 1986       ¦10,000  ¦
                +------------------+--------¦
                ¦February 4, 1988  ¦15,000  ¦
                +------------------+--------¦
                ¦August 8, 1988    ¦10,000  ¦
                +------------------+--------¦
                ¦August 9, 1988    ¦15,000  ¦
                +------------------+--------¦
                ¦December 13, 1989 ¦30,000  ¦
                +------------------+--------¦
                ¦Total             ¦$105,000¦
                +---------------------------+
                

With regard to the above remittances (with the exception of petitioners' April 15, 1982, $25,000 remittance), respondent: (1) Treated each remittance as a deposit at the time each remittance was made; (2) has agreed to apply each remittance in payment of petitioners' joint Federal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Deaton v. C.I.R., 05-60278.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 9 Febrero 2006
    ...a three-way split of authority regarding the treatment of a Form 4868 remittance. Applying its own precedent in Risman v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 191, 1993 WL 72856 (1993), which calls for an examination of the facts and circumstances of a case in order to determine whether the taxpayer inte......
  • David v. U.S., Civil Action No. 96-30067-MAP.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • 30 Abril 1997
    ...Plaintiff argues that "the better reasoned weight of authority follows the United States Tax Court position [in Risman v. Comm'r, 100 T.C. 191 [1993 WL 72856] (1993),] ... that a remittance ... made ... without reference to any specific assessment, audit probable liability is more aptly con......
  • Harrigill v. U.S., 04-60684.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 31 Mayo 2005
    ...revealed that her remittance was a deposit under the fact-and-circumstances approach taken by the Tax Court in Risman v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 191, 1993 WL 72856 (1993). The district court noted Harrigill's explanation that she made the remittance because she was having difficulties with h......
  • Brockamp v. US
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • 26 Julio 1994
    ...of estimated tax which are subject to the statute of limitations under Section 6511(a). But see Risman v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 100 T.C. 191, 199, 1993 WL 72856 (U.S.T.C.1993) (criticizing holding in England that filing of Form 4868 with remittance is automatically deemed an estimated......
  • 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