1981 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 197 | Tax Ct. | 1981
MEMORANDUM OPINION
EKMAN,
All 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.
Ralph O. Baird and Betty Baird, husband and wife, resided in Tubac, Arizona at the time they filed their petition herein. Their joint Federal1981 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 197">*198 income tax return for 1978 was filed with the Internal Revenue Service Center at Ogden, Utah.
On October 3, 1979, petitioners received a refund of $ 442.10 based upon a recalculation of their 1978 tax by the Internal Revenue Service. In a letter received by petitioners it was explained that the reason for the refund was that "An error was made in figuring your capital gains and losses on Schedule D."
On May 30, 1980, a notice of deficiency was issued to petitioners in which respondent determined that petitioners were liable for the 15 percent minimum tax imposed by section 56 on the tax preference portion of the capital gain items reported on their return.
Petitioners failed to attach Schedule 4625, "Computation of Minimum Tax--Individual," to their 1978 return and to do the calculations required therein. Respondent determined that petitioners were subject to a minimum tax on items of tax preference in the amount of $ 575.
Petitioners have not presented any evidence that the minimum tax calculations, as determined by respondent, are incorrect. In addition, petitioners apparently concede that the notice of deficiency was issued within 3 years of the due date of their return. 1981 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 197">*199 However, petitioners contend that since respondent, prior to the issuance of the notice of deficiency, issued a refund based upon his own recalculation of tax due on the submitted return, he is now barred from determining a deficiency in petitioners' income tax.
In
We believe the petitioner's contention to be erroneous. There was neither a closing agreement nor a valid compromise in the instant case. Refunds of taxes paid under the "pay as you go" income tax plan, without audit, are not final determinations under
See also
While petitioners' desire to hold respondent to his original position that a refund was due is understandable, the law is clear. Respondent is not barred from determining a deficiency in petitioners' 1978 income tax simply because he previously issued an erroneous refund. 1
Accordingly,
Footnotes
1. See also
.Johnson v. Commissioner , T.C. Memo. 1975-70↩