Excess refund stops interest on overpayment

Article Abstract:

TAM 9443007 states that the accumulation of interest under Sec. 6611 on a tax overpayment which was subtracted from a subsequent tax liability that came about as a result of excess tax refund terminated on the data of the excess refund. The case concerned an entity that overpaid its 1981 taxes. It was also found that the 1983 tentative refund of the 1981 taxes that resulted from a 1982 credit carryback was lower than the correct amount. Later, it was discovered that the 1984 tentative refund of the 1981 taxes that came from a 1983 credit carryback exceeded the correct amount. The final overpayment amount was then credited against the outstanding tax liability of the taxpayer in 1976. The problem is that no statute or Regulations has specified the manner by which to identify the 'due date' for an excess refund. To solve the problem, the 'Avon Products Inc.' case was used.

---

What is a "tax payment" for purposes of timely refund claims?

Article Abstract:

The meaning of 'tax payment' for the purpose of determining whether refund claims are not allowed by the state of limitations under Section 6511 was cleared up through decisions reached in two recent cases. In the Risman case, 100 TC No 13, a remittance with Form 4868, or Application for Automatic Extension of Time, was considered to be a deposit and not a payment until such time that the taxpayers registered a return applying the deposit to a tax liability. In the case of Mobil Oil Corp, 71 AFTR2d 93-xxxx, 93-1 USTC, the administrative offset against additional tax as a result of the redistribution of income from the taxpayer's foreign associates was not held to be a payment. In both cases, the provisions of Section 6511(a) were clarified.

Tax assessment

---

Responsible person and lender penalty were overlapping

Article Abstract:

The Seventh Circuit ruled that net payroll lender Security Pacific Business Credit Inc can be held liable to overlapping penalties. The court ruled that Security Pacific can be held responsible under Section 3505 as a third-party lender and under Section 6672 as a responsible person for the nonpayment of wage withholding by a borrower. It was noted by the Seventh Circuit that it treated each section as it would apply to two different parties and that the imposition of liability under two provisions does not require a relationship between those provisions.

Laws, regulations and rules, Lender liability, Withholding tax, Security Pacific Business Credit Inc.

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Programs ease tax interest and penalty calculations. New features add to appeal of in-house return preparation
• Abstracts: Corporate estimated taxes: payments need not be 90 percent of liability to escape penalty. When underpayments will be subject to higher interest
• Abstracts: Germany's interest rate dilemma. The Fed keeps the world guessing. Productivity poser
• Abstracts: The November 2002 elections: what do they mean for survey research? The evolution of privacy legislation
• Abstracts: Two year update on the Emerging Issues Task Force. Accounting for pensions - two key areas. Impairment of value of long-lived assets

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.