Delinquent Returns and Credit-Elect Overpayments: A Procedural Tangle
13 Pages Posted: 24 Aug 2004 Last revised: 12 Jun 2013
Date Written: 2004
This article considers the application of the statute of limitations on refund claims to a situation in which the taxpayer elected to credit a claimed overpayment estimated tax liability for the following year. The article focuses primarily on the district court decisions in Harrigill v. United States. In Harrigill, the court misapplied the statute of limitations of Internal Revenue Code section 6511, Lederman claims, apparently testing the timeliness of the taxpayer's 1995 return/claim with respect to her 1994 return/claim. The court appeared to believe that its finding that a large remittance made by the taxpayer with an extension of time to file her 1994 return constituted a deposit was critical to the outcome of the case. Lederman argues, however, on the facts of the case, whether that remittance was a payment or a deposit was irrelevant. Instead, critical to the analysis of the facts in Harrigill is the application of section 6513, a statute that the court did not address.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation