Metcalf v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
The petitioner offered to compromise an additional assessment asserted against him and tendered $500 with said offer prior to the expiration of the period of limitation, which offer was rejected, but the amount so tendered was not returned to him. In December of 1924, after the period of limitation had expired, the petitioner authorized the respondent to apply the $500 toward the payment of a portion of his liability.
Read the full summary
The petitioner offered to compromise an additional assessment asserted against him and tendered $500 with said offer prior to the expiration of the period of limitation, which offer was rejected, but the amount so tendered was not returned to him. In December of 1924, after the period of limitation had expired, the petitioner authorized the respondent to apply the $500 toward the payment of a portion of his liability. Held, it was not until after the period of limitation that the said amount became "paid" within the meaning of section 607 of the Revenue Act of 1928, and it, therefore,…
1Opinion of the Court
*884OPINION.
MoeRis :
The petitioner contends that not only is the $512.20 shown in the respondent’s deficiency notice barred by the statute of limitations, but that the $500 applied as a credit on account of the total assessment of. $1,012.20 was an overpayment of tax and that we should so find. The respondent concedes that the collection of the tax is barred by the statute and, furthermore, that the sole question for determination is whether there was an overpayment of $500 within the meaning of section 607 of the Revenue Act of 1928, which provides that:
Any tax (or any interest, penalty,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bowers v. New York & Albany Lighterage Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1927
3Cited by2 opinions
- Walter T. Coy v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967
- Metcalf v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1929