By: dmc-admin//October 8, 2001//
“Even if Dr. Malachinski’s remittance could be considered a payment rather than a deposit when it was transferred and credited to his 1982 account, sec. 6512(b)(4) nevertheless prevents the tax court from exercising jurisdiction over the remittance. … The Senate Report explains that … ‘the Tax Court does not have jurisdiction over the validity or merits of the credits or offsets that reduce or eliminate the refund to which the taxpayer was otherwise entitled.’… [T]he tax court lacked jurisdiction to determine whether Dr. Malachinski was entitled to a credit for the $20,400 remittance.”
Affirmed.
Appeal from the United States Tax Court, Gale, J., Ripple, J.