Opinion
19466-17
03-23-2022
RAM RATAN SHARMA & SHAKUNTALA SHARMA, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER AND DECISION
Joseph H. Gale, Judge.
On October 29, 2020, the Court issued its Memorandum Opinion, T.C. Memo. 2020-147, directing entry of decision in this case pursuant to Rule 155.Respondent untimely filed his Computation for Entry of Decision on June 15, 2021. Therein, respondent proposed that we enter a decision in accordance with our Memorandum Opinion finding a deficiency in petitioners' Federal income tax due for the taxable year 2014 in the amount of $5,125, and finding no penalty due from petitioners under section 6662(a).
All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times.
As more fully discussed in our Orders served October 15, 2021, and January 21, 2022, petitioners opposed respondent's Computation for Entry of Decision based on their receipt of an Internal Revenue Service Notice CP21C dated November 5, 2018 (Notice CP21C), which they incorrectly understood to indicate that respondent had conceded that no deficiency is due for 2014. Petitioners therefore requested that we direct respondent to return to them $6,822.80 that they had previously remitted. As we explained in our October 15 Order, the Notice CP21C has no impact on the amount of the deficiency due from petitioners for the year at issue. However, as we explained in our January 21 Order, respondent's Computation for Entry of Decision did not clearly indicate whether petitioners are due any overpayment for 2014 as a consequence of their $6,822.80 remittance. We therefore directed respondent to file a revised Rule 155 computation on or before February 14, 2022.
Respondent timely filed a Revised Computation as directed. Therein, respondent makes clear that petitioners are due an overpayment of $1,697.80 (equal to the excess of the $6,822.80 remittance over the $5,125 deficiency that respondent proposes). Respondent indicates that he treated petitioners' remittance as an advance payment that was made on August 18, 2017 (after the mailing of the notice of deficiency upon which this case is based), and that petitioners are accordingly entitled to an overpayment pursuant to section 6512(b)(3)(A).
By Order served February 28, 2022, we directed petitioners to file a response to respondent's Revised Computation on or before March 16, 2022. The Court received and filed petitioners' Response to Revised Computation on March 10, 2022.In that Response, petitioners merely repeat their argument that respondent must return to them the full amount of their $6,822.80 remittance based on their claim (which we have already rejected) that respondent conceded in the Notice CP21C that there is no deficiency due from petitioners for the year at issue.
The Court previously received and filed on March 7, 2022, petitioners' Notice Dated March 1, 2022. Petitioners' Notice indicated that they would be unable to respond to the Court between March 3, 2022, and April 9, 2022, due to an unspecified emergency. We are satisfied that the parties' positions are adequately set forth in the materials presently before the Court and that no further submissions from either party would aid us in disposing of this case. We will accordingly proceed to enter our decision.
We agree with respondent that, based on the facts as represented in his Revised Computation, petitioners are due an overpayment of $1,697.80. In addition, our review of respondent's Revised Computation confirms that it otherwise accurately reflects the determinations set forth in our Memorandum Opinion. We consequently agree with and adopt respondent's Revised Computation.
The foregoing considered, it is
ORDERED that petitioners' Motion for Entry of Decision, filed July 10, 2020, is denied as moot. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Revised Computation, filed February 14, 2022, is incorporated as the findings of the Court. It is further
ORDERED and DECIDED that there is a deficiency in income tax due from petitioners for the taxable year 2014 in the amount of $5,125, and an overpayment due to petitioners pursuant to I.R.C. § 6512(b)(3)(A) in the amount of $1,697.80, which amount was paid on August 18, 2017, after the mailing of the notice of deficiency; and
That there is no penalty due from petitioners for the taxable year 2014 under the provisions of I.R.C. § 6662(a).