§6512 — Limitations in case of petition to Tax Court
83 cases·33 followed·13 distinguished·1 questioned·4 overruled·32 cited—40% support
Statute Text — 26 U.S.C. §6512
If the Secretary has mailed to the taxpayer a notice of deficiency under section 6212(a) (relating to deficiencies of income, estate, gift, and certain excise taxes) and if the taxpayer files a petition with the Tax Court within the time prescribed in section 6213(a) (or 7481(c) with respect to a determination of statutory interest or section 7481(d) solely with respect to a determination of estate tax by the Tax Court), no credit or refund of income tax for the same taxable year, of gift tax for the same calendar year or calendar quarter, of estate tax in respect of the taxable estate of the same decedent, or of tax imposed by chapter 41, 42, 43, or 44 with respect to any act (or failure to act) to which such petition relates, in respect of which the Secretary has determined the deficiency shall be allowed or made and no suit by the taxpayer for the recovery of any part of the tax shall be instituted in any court except—
As to overpayments determined by a decision of the Tax Court which has become final, and
As to any amount collected in excess of an amount computed in accordance with the decision of the Tax Court which has become final, and
As to any amount collected after the period of limitation upon the making of levy or beginning a proceeding in court for collection has expired; but in any such claim for credit or refund or in any such suit for refund the decision of the Tax Court which has become final, as to whether such period has expired before the notice of deficiency was mailed, shall be conclusive, and
As to overpayments attributable to partnership items, in accordance with subchapter C of chapter 63, and
As to any amount collected within the period during which the Secretary is prohibited from making the assessment or from collecting by levy or through a proceeding in court under the provisions of section 6213(a), and
As to overpayments the Secretary is authorized to refund or credit pending appeal as provided in subsection (b).
Except as provided by paragraph (3) and by section 7463, if the Tax Court finds that there is no deficiency and further finds that the taxpayer has made an overpayment of income tax for the same taxable year, of gift tax for the same calendar year or calendar quarter, of estate tax in respect of the taxable estate of the same decedent, or of tax imposed by chapter 41, 42, 43, or 44 with respect to any act (or failure to act) to which such petition relates, in respect of which the Secretary determined the deficiency, or finds that there is a deficiency but that the taxpayer has made an overpayment of such tax, the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction to determine the amount of such overpayment, and such amount shall, when the decision of the Tax Court has become final, be credited or refunded to the taxpayer. If a notice of appeal in respect of the decision of the Tax Court is filed under section 7483, the Secretary is authorized to refund or credit the overpayment determined by the Tax Court to the extent the overpayment is not contested on appeal.
If, after 120 days after a decision of the Tax Court has become final, the Secretary has failed to refund the overpayment determined by the Tax Court, together with the interest thereon as provided in subchapter B of chapter 67, then the Tax Court, upon motion by the taxpayer, shall have jurisdiction to order the refund of such overpayment and interest. An order of the Tax Court disposing of a motion under this paragraph shall be reviewable in the same manner as a decision of the Tax Court, but only with respect to the matters determined in such order.
No such credit or refund shall be allowed or made of any portion of the tax unless the Tax Court determines as part of its decision that such portion was paid—
after the mailing of the notice of deficiency,
within the period which would be applicable under section 6511(b)(2), (c), or (d), if on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency a claim had been filed (whether or not filed) stating the grounds upon which the Tax Court finds that there is an overpayment, or
within the period which would be applicable under section 6511(b)(2), (c), or (d), in respect of any claim for refund filed within the applicable period specified in section 6511 and before the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency—
which had not been disallowed before that date,
which had been disallowed before that date and in respect of which a timely suit for refund could have been commenced as of that date, or
in respect of which a suit for refund had been commenced before that date and within the period specified in section 6532.
In a case described in subparagraph (B) where the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency is during the third year after the due date (with extensions) for filing the return of tax and no return was filed before such date, the applicable period under subsections (a) and (b)(2) of section 6511 shall be 3 years.
The Tax Court shall have no jurisdiction under this subsection to restrain or review any credit or reduction made by the Secretary under section 6402.
For provisions allowing determination of tax in title 11 cases, see
section 505(a) of title 11
of the United States Code.
For provision giving the Tax Court jurisdiction to award reasonable litigation costs in proceedings to enforce an overpayment determined by such court, see section 7430.
Treasury Regulations
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.6512-1 Limitations in case of petition to Tax Court
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.6512-1(a) Effect of petition to Tax Court—(1) General rule.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.6512-1(b) Overpayment determined by Tax Court.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.6512-1(c) Jeopardy assessments.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.6512-1(d) Disallowance of deficiency by reviewing court.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.6512-1(e) Collection in excess of amount determined by Tax Court.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.6512-1(f) Collection after expiration of statutory period.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.6512-1(i) §301.6512-1(i)
83 Citing Cases
llustrates his position that equitable tolling applies to these statutory provisions: Under the particular circumstances of this case, we believe there is a good faith argument to be made that the Supreme Court would, and should, revisit Brockamp, supra, and either determine that Brockamp should be overruled, or that additional, nonstatutory exceptions to the refund filing dates should apply in exigent circumstances where the Internal Revenue Service, through its employees and agents, has behave
445 (1985), we overruled two Opinions of the Court which had held that the words “an overpayment of tax”, in the predecessor of section 6512(b), excluded interest.
Our deficiency jurisdiction encompasses the redetermination of deficiencies under section 6214(a) and of overpayments, subject to certain limitations, under section - 7 - 6512(b) . Petitioners raise no overpayment issues within the scope of section 6512(b)(1) ; therefore our overpayment jurisdiction under section 6512 does not apply .
Unlike section 6404(h), section 6330 contains no cross-reference to the rules of section 6512(b), nor does section 6330 cross-reference section 6404 (h)(2) (B), which makes section 6512(b)-type rules applicable only "for purposes of this subsection" (i.e., subsection (h) of section 6404).
6512(b)(4), I.R.C., which provides that this Court does not have jurisdiction to restrain or review the Commissioner's application of an overpayment pursuant to sec. 6402, I.R.C., to outstanding tax liabilities of the taxpayer who overpaid, does not apply where our final decision in the same case precludes the existence of the liabilities to which the Commissioner applied the overpayment.
Petitioner contends that pursuant to section 6512(b) the Court has express refund jurisdiction in a case in which the Court has already acquired jurisdiction.
In contrast, consistent with section 6601(e), the Tax Court did have jurisdiction to redetermine statutory interest if a taxpayer had properly invoked the Court's overpayment jurisdiction pursuant to section 6512(b) (2).
Consistent with section 6601(e), the Court does have jurisdiction to redetermine statutory interest where a taxpayer has properly invoked the Court's overpayment jurisdiction pursuant to section 6512.
Our jurisdiction to determine an overpayment is set forth in section 6512(b)(1) and (3), which provides in pertinent part: SEC. 6512(b). Overpayment Determined by Tax Court.— (1) Jurisdiction to determine. — Except as provided by paragraph (3) * * * if the Tax Court finds that there is no deficiency and further finds that the taxpayer ha
These jurisdictional provisions of section 6512 provide the Tax Court with authority to decide all issues necessary to determine the correct amount of income tax for the taxable year in issue.
Petitioners raise no overpayment issues within the scope of section 6512(b)(1); therefore our overpayment jurisdiction under section 6512 does not apply.
Section 6512, which gives this Court jurisdiction to determine overpayments, is not within sub-chapter B of chapter 63, and the literal terms of section 6601(e)(1) provide that interest is to be treated as tax for all other purposes in title 26, including section 6512(b). * * * [] See Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, supra at 295 (“
6512 provides in part: SEC. 6512. LIMITATIONS IN CASE OF PETITION TO TAX COURT. (b) Overpayment Determined by Tax Court.-- (1) Jurisdiction to determine.--Except as provided by paragraph(3) and by section (continued...) - 15 - Petitioners do not assert that the differences between the February 12, 1999, remittances and the deficiencies in iss
To the extent there is an overpayment, the overpayment will be determined pursuant to section 6512 by a decision under Rule 155.
Shitrit nonetheless argues that section 6512 grants us jurisdiction to determine an overpayment and that section 6402 equips us with the power to order a refund of that overpayment.
ver the next year. Dr. Baldwin's letter does not speak to petitioner's ability to manage his personal financial affairs. Discussion The Court'sjurisdiction to determine an overpayment oftax and to order the refund ofthat overpayment is prescribed in section 6512. In the case ofa deficiency proceeding initiated by a taxpayerunder section 6213(a), ifthe Court determines that there is no deficiency and further finds that the taxpayerhas made an overpayment ofincome tax for the same taxable period,
Section 6665(a)(2) provides that "any reference in this title [26 ofthe United States Code (to which section 6512 belongs)] to 'tax' imposed by this title shall be deemed also to refer to the additions to the tax, additional amounts, and penalties provided by this chapter."l° Therefore, an overpayment oftax under section 6512(b)(1) requires payment in excess ofthe deficiency plus any penalties and additions to tax.
Neither the amendment of section 6512 (b) (3), effective for tax years that ended after August 5, 1997,,nor its legislative history permits the Court to.deviate in this case from the holding in Commissioner v.
235 ,(1996):, she contend that we have jurisdiction under section 6512 (b) ( ) to determiè1e and refund the overpayment she contends-she made Petitione does not dispute' respondent ' s requested findin s of fact that respondent didenot .treat the remittances as p yments of ta and that respondent±did not 'assess the anounts of the remittances as deficiencies.
7436(d)(1) provides that “The principles of subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) of section 6213, section 6214(a), section 6215, section 6503(a), section 6512, and section 7481 shall apply to proceedings brought under this section in the same manner as if the Secretary’s determination described in subsection (a) were a notice of deficiency.” We also have jurisdiction in a deficiency proceeding to make a determination under sec.
titioner made on January 30, 2003 . The parties agree that the only issue that remains for our determination is whether petitioner is barred from recovering the remaining portion of the above-mentioned overpayment (amounting to $105,851) pursuant to section 6512 . 1 Discussion Petitioner objects to respondent's motion for entry of decision in accordance with the stipulation . Petitioner argues that the delinquent return forms the basis of a claim for refund, and that petitioner is therefore enti
tion 6601(e) does not curtail our jurisdiction over interest on overpayments of taxes. Instead, the Court does have jurisdiction to redetermine statutory interest where a taxpayer has properly invoked the Court’s overpayment jurisdiction pursuant to section 6512. The cases before the Court, however, involve both interest owed by petitioners on deficiencies, over which we arguably lack jurisdiction, and interest owed by respondent on overpayments, over which we clearly have jurisdiction. This pos
tion 6601(e) does not curtail our jurisdiction over interest on overpayments of taxes. Instead, the Court does have jurisdiction to redetermine statutory interest where a taxpayer has properly invoked the Court’s overpayment jurisdiction pursuant to section 6512. The cases before the Court, however, involve both interest owed by petitioners on deficiencies, over which we arguably lack jurisdiction, and interest owed by respondent on overpayments, over which we clearly have jurisdiction. This pos
tion 6601(e) does not curtail our jurisdiction over interest on overpayments of taxes. Instead, the Court does have jurisdiction to redetermine statutory interest where a taxpayer has properly invoked the Court’s overpayment jurisdiction pursuant to section 6512. The cases before the Court, however, involve both interest owed by petitioners on deficiencies, over which we arguably lack jurisdiction, and interest owed by respondent on overpayments, over which we clearly have jurisdiction. This pos
tion 6601(e) does not curtail our jurisdiction over interest on overpayments of taxes. Instead, the Court does have jurisdiction to redetermine statutory interest where a taxpayer has properly invoked the Court’s overpayment jurisdiction pursuant to section 6512. The cases before the Court, however, involve both interest owed by petitioners on deficiencies, over which we arguably lack jurisdiction, and interest owed by respondent on overpayments, over which we clearly have jurisdiction. This pos
tion 6601(e) does not curtail our jurisdiction over interest on overpayments of taxes. Instead, the Court does have jurisdiction to redetermine statutory interest where a taxpayer has properly invoked the Court’s overpayment jurisdiction pursuant to section 6512. The cases before the Court, however, involve both interest owed by petitioners on deficiencies, over which we arguably lack jurisdiction, and interest owed by respondent on overpayments, over which we clearly have jurisdiction. This pos
tion 6601(e) does not curtail our jurisdiction over interest on overpayments of taxes. Instead, the Court does have jurisdiction to redetermine statutory interest where a taxpayer has properly invoked the Court’s overpayment jurisdiction pursuant to section 6512. The cases before the Court, however, involve both interest owed by petitioners on deficiencies, over which we arguably lack jurisdiction, and interest owed by respondent on overpayments, over which we clearly have jurisdiction. This pos
tion 6601(e) does not curtail our jurisdiction over interest on overpayments of taxes. Instead, the Court does have jurisdiction to redetermine statutory interest where a taxpayer has properly invoked the Court’s overpayment jurisdiction pursuant to section 6512. The cases before the Court, however, involve both interest owed by petitioners on deficiencies, over which we arguably lack jurisdiction, and interest owed by respondent on overpayments, over which we clearly have jurisdiction. This pos
tion 6601(e) does not curtail our jurisdiction over interest on overpayments of taxes. Instead, the Court does have jurisdiction to redetermine statutory interest where a taxpayer has properly invoked the Court’s overpayment jurisdiction pursuant to section 6512. The cases before the Court, however, involve both interest owed by petitioners on deficiencies, over which we arguably lack jurisdiction, and interest owed by respondent on overpayments, over which we clearly have jurisdiction. This pos
tion 6601(e) does not curtail our jurisdiction over interest on overpayments of taxes. Instead, the Court does have jurisdiction to redetermine statutory interest where a taxpayer has properly invoked the Court’s overpayment jurisdiction pursuant to section 6512. The cases before the Court, however, involve both interest owed by petitioners on deficiencies, over which we arguably lack jurisdiction, and interest owed by respondent on overpayments, over which we clearly have jurisdiction. This pos
tion 6601(e) does not curtail our jurisdiction over interest on overpayments of taxes. Instead, the Court does have jurisdiction to redetermine statutory interest where a taxpayer has properly invoked the Court’s overpayment jurisdiction pursuant to section 6512. The cases before the Court, however, involve both interest owed by petitioners on deficiencies, over which we arguably lack jurisdiction, and interest owed by respondent on overpayments, over which we clearly have jurisdiction. This pos
tion 6601(e) does not curtail our jurisdiction over interest on overpayments of taxes. Instead, the Court does have jurisdiction to redetermine statutory interest where a taxpayer has properly invoked the Court’s overpayment jurisdiction pursuant to section 6512. The cases before the Court, however, involve both interest owed by petitioners on deficiencies, over which we arguably lack jurisdiction, and interest owed by respondent on overpayments, over which we clearly have jurisdiction. This pos
tion 6601(e) does not curtail our jurisdiction over interest on overpayments of taxes. Instead, the Court does have jurisdiction to redetermine statutory interest where a taxpayer has properly invoked the Court's overpayment jurisdiction pursuant to section 6512. The cases before the Court, however, involve both interest owed by petitioners on deficiencies, over which we arguably lack jurisdiction, and interest owed by respondent on overpayments, over which we clearly have jurisdiction. This pos
tion 6601(e) does not curtail our jurisdiction over interest on overpayments of taxes. Instead, the Court does have jurisdiction to redetermine statutory interest where a taxpayer has properly invoked the Court’s overpayment jurisdiction pursuant to section 6512. The cases before the Court, however, involve both interest owed by petitioners on deficiencies, over which we arguably lack jurisdiction, and interest owed by respondent on overpayments, over which we clearly have jurisdiction. This pos
Section 6512 grants this Court limited jurisdiction to determine and award overpayments of tax to taxpayers.2 However, the amount of any refund which this Court can award is restricted according to when the overpayment was made. Section 6512(b)(3) 2Specifically, sec. 6512(b)(1) provides: “if the Tax Court finds that there is no deficiency and furth
ory interest. See Thomas v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-291. Consistent with section 6601(e), the Court does have jurisdiction to redetermine statutory interest where a taxpayer has properly invoked the Court’s overpayment jurisdiction pursuant to section 6512. See Barton v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 548, 554-555 (1991). In Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. & Subs, v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 291 (1998), we held that the Court had jurisdiction under section 6512 to review the taxpayers’ claim that they had ov
For purposes of section 6511(b)(2) and (c) and section 6512, payment of any portion of the tax made before the last day prescribed for the payment of the tax shall be considered made on such last day.
conceded all the adjustments in the notice of deficiency.2 The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioners, during 1989, realized a gain or loss under section 1001(a) on the foreclosure sale of real estate; (2) if petitioners realized a loss, whether petitioners are entitled to a credit or refund for overpayment of their 1989 income tax under section 6512; and (3) whether petitioners are liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1).
9 See Treas. Reg. § 1.708-1(b)(3) and (4); I.R.S. Notice 2001-5, 2001-1 C.B. 327 (stating that both terminating and new partnership file short period returns; both use same employer identification number); see also I.R.S. Field Serv. Adv. Mem. 200132009 (Aug. 10, 2001) (stating that return filed for partnership that terminated on sale of mo
If, on the other hand, this is a claim for abatement ofinterest, then petitioner would not be entitled to interest on her overpaymentbecause the overpayment was properly determined to be a credit against estimated tax. See sec. 6513(d). Because an overpayment ofincome tax that is claimed as a credit against estimated tax for the succeedi
Special Rules.-- (1) Restrictions on assessment and collection pending action, etc.--The principles ofsubsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) ofsection 6213, section 6214(a), section 6215, section 6503(a), section 6512, and section 7481 shall apply to proceedings brought under * * * [section 7436] in the same manner as ifthe Secretary's determination described in subsection (a) were a notice ofdeficiency.
— The principles of subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) of section 6213, section 6214(a), section 6215, section 6503(a), section 6512, and section 7481 shall apply to proceedings brought under * * * [section 7436] in the same manner as if the Secretary’s determination described in subsection (a) were a notice of deficiency.
Winter v. Commissioner, 135 T.C. 238, 244 (2010). -36- SGR's géneral ledgers show regular monthlypayments of$1,847 to Mr. Repetto identified as "Payroll expenses", "Salary & Wages (Payroll)", or "Salary". Mr. Repetto explainedthat the QuickBooks entries listedthe payments as sálary "just to keep track ofthe money" that he took out o
Winter v. Commissioner, 135 T.C. 238, 244 (2010). -36- SGR's géneral ledgers show regular monthlypayments of$1,847 to Mr. Repetto identified as "Payroll expenses", "Salary & Wages (Payroll)", or "Salary". Mr. Repetto explainedthat the QuickBooks entries listedthe payments as sálary "just to keep track ofthe money" that he took out o
Section 6512, grants this Court limited. jurisdiction to decide overpayments of .tax and 6Respondent objects to the physician's statements on the,, basis of hearsay and lack of authentication . See Fed .vR . 'Evid. ,801(c), 802, 901 . We conclude that the physician's statements . are. hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible for the truth of the matter
These jurisdictional provisions of section 6512 provide the Tax Court with authority to decide all issues necessary to determine the correct amount of income tax for the taxable year in issue .
Respondent, citing section 6512 , argues that the Court "lacks jurisdiction to order overpayment refunds, with respect to closed cases when the final decision s have not been vacated" .
Respondent, citing section 6512 , argues that the Court "lacks jurisdiction to order overpayment refunds, with respect to closed cases when the final decision s have not been vacated" .
Respondent, citing section 6512 , argues that the Court "lacks jurisdiction to order overpayment refunds, with respect to closed cases when the final decision s have not been vacated" .
Respondent, citing section 6512 , argues that the Court "lacks jurisdiction to order overpayment refunds, with respect to closed cases when the final decision s have not been vacated" .
Section 6512 generally deprives other federal courts of jurisdiction over refund cases for tax years that have been the subject of deficiency cases in our Court. But there are exceptions: Section 6512(a)(2), for 13 Cooper, supra note 10, at 431. -27- example, allows a refund claim for the same year “as to any amount collected in excess of an amoun
Section 6512 generally deprives other federal courts of jurisdiction over refund cases for tax years that have been the subject of deficiency cases in our Court. But there are exceptions: Section 6512(a)(2), for example, allows a refund claim for the same year “as to any amount collected in excess of an amount computed in accordance with the decisi
(A) Allowance of credit or refund.--Except as provided in subparagraph ·(B), notwithstanding any·other law or·rule of law (other than section 6512 (b), 7121, or 7122), credit or^ refund shall be allowed or made to the extent attributable to·the application of _this section.· (B) Re.s judicata.--In'the case of any.election under subsectión (b) ör (c), if a decision of the Tax Court in any prior proceeding for the same taxable year has become final, such decision shall be conclusiv
. Memo . 2005- 244 ; see also Ertz v . Commissioner, T.C. Memo . 2007 -15 . A narrow exception to this rule applies if a taxpayer has paid the assessed tax-motivated interest and subsequently invokes the overpayment jurisdiction of this Court under section 6512 (b) . See Barton v . Commissioner, 97 T .C . 548 (1991 ) . Petitioners do not claim that they have paid the interest . - 15 - Petitioners nevertheless argue that this Court has jurisdiction to review interest assessments under section 66
. In this regard, we note that the record in this (continued...) - 8 - Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case Division. To reflect our disposition of the disputed issue, Decision will be entered for respondent. 4(...continued) case does not show any overpayment of tax for 2001; therefore, the Court’s ancillary jurisdiction under sec. 6512 is not implicated in this deficiency proceeding. See sec. 6213; cf. secs. 6320, 6330 involving lien and levy actions (collection actions).
Section 6512 grants this Court limited jurisdiction to determine and award overpayments of tax to taxpayers. However, the amount of any refund which this Court can award is restricted according to when the overpayment was made. Section 6512(b)(3) provides: (3) Limit on amount of CREDIT or refund. — No such credit or refund shall be allowed or made
Special Rules.-- (1) Restrictions on Assessment and Collection Pending Action, Etc.--The principles of subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) of section 6213, section 6214(a), section 6215, section 6503(a), section 6512, and section 7481 shall apply to proceedings brought under this section in the same manner as if the Secretary’s determination described in subsection (a) were a notice of deficiency.
— The principles of subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) of section 6213, section 6214(a), section 6215, section 6503(a), section 6512, and section 7481 shall apply to proceedings brought under this section in the same manner as if the Secretary’s determination described in subsection (a) were a notice of deficiency.
7436(d) provides as follows: (d) Special Rules.-- (1) Restrictions on assessment and collection pending action, etc.--The principles of subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) of section 6213, section 6214(a), section 6215, section 6503(a), section 6512, and section 7481 shall apply to proceedings brought under this section in the same manner as if the Secretary's determination described in subsection (a) were a notice of deficiency.
— The principles of subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) of section 6213, section 6214(a), section 6215, section 6503(a), section 6512, and section 7481 shall apply to proceedings brought under this section in the same manner as if the Secretary’s determination described in subsection (a) were a notice of deficiency.
For purposes of section 6511(b)(2) and (c) and section 6512 [relating to limitations in case of petition to Tax Court], payment of any portion of the tax made before the last day prescribed for the payment of the tax shall be considered made on such last day.* * * Section 6513(b)(2) provides that for purposes of section 6511 or 6512, "Any amount paid as estimated income tax for any taxable year
The petition includes an allegation that petitioner is entitled to a refund under section 6512 in respect of any taxes assessed or paid after the expiration of the applicable period of limitations.