Document: 528 U.S. 431120 S.Ct. 1006145 L.Ed.2d 949 SyllabusNOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as being done in connection with this case, at the time opinion issued. The constitutes no part of Court but has been prepared by Reporter Decisions for convenience reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BARALv.UNITED CERTIORARI TO APPEALSFOR DISTRICT COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 98 1667. Argued January 18, 2000Decided February 22, 2000 Two remittances were made to Internal Revenue Service toward petitioner Baral's income tax liability 1988 year: withholding $4,104 from wages throughout his employer, and an estimated $1,100 remitted 1989 Baral. return was due on April 15, 1989. Though he received extension until August missed deadline did not file June 1, 1993. On return, claimed $1,175 overpayment asked apply excess credit outstanding obligations year. denied requested credit, concluding that claim exceeded ceiling imposed 26 U.S.C. § 6511(b)(2)(A), which states "the amount or refund shall exceed portion paid within period, immediately preceding filing claim, equal 3 years plus period any return." Since Baral filed 1993, 4-month initial date, relevant look-back under §6511(b)(2)(A) extended back 1990 (i.e., three four months). According Service, had overpaid during so faced zero allowable credit. commenced suit Federal District Court, granted summary judgment. Appeals affirmed, both "paid" Held: Remittances are date calendar year taxpayer's return. Sections 6513(b)(1) (2) unequivocally provide two 1989, purposes §6511(b)(2)(A), they precede began 1990. Subsection (1) resolves when remittance employer's "paid," subsection determines "paid." Because neither these nor others zero, correct deny Contrary taxes their own right (separate tax), converted into only Rather, methods collecting taxes. And Tax Code directly contradicts notion assessed. §6151(a). His position also finds support Rosenman States, 323 658, would work detriment timely taxpayers, who interest between claiming Service's assessment. Pp. 9. 172 F.3d 918, affirmed. Thomas, J., delivered unanimous Court. Opinion 1 NOTICE: This subject formal revision before publication preliminary print Reports. Readers notify Decisions, Supreme Washington, D. C. 20543, typographical other errors, order corrections may goes press. 1667 DAVID H. BARAL, PETITIONERv.UNITED 2 ON WRIT OFAPPEALS FOR Justice Thomas 4 imposes taxpayer entitled compensation tax: "[T]he 6511(b)(2)(A). We called upon case decide types section: tax, employer tax. plain language nearby section, §6513(b), provides answer: These I 5 facts disputed. David first, 1988, garden-variety collection see §3402. second, sent himself out concern might inadequate meet obligation year, §6654. In ordinary course, applied deadline; nearly later, July 19, assessed reported belated 6 (and behalf) more respect taxable than actually owed. It dispute request "within paid, whichever such periods expires later." §6511(a); §6511(b)(1). But concluded §6511(b)(2)(A). That provision Ibid.; generally Commissioner Lundy, 516 235, 240 (1996) (explaining §6511 contains separate timeliness provisions: §6511(b)(1)'s §6511(b)(2)'s ceilings, defined reference provision's "look-back period[s]"). earlier 7 then instant court sustained judgment its favor. App. Pet. Cert. A judgt. 918 (CADC 1999). looked §6513(b)(1), amounts withheld "shall deemed have [the taxpayer] 15th day fourth month following close year," §6513(b)(2), makes similar submitted that, subsections, issue Accord, e.g., Dantzler 183 1247, 1250 1251 (CA11 1999) (estimated tax); Ertman 165 204, 207 (CA2 (same); Ehle 720 F.2d 1096, 1096 1097 (CA9 1983) (withholding wages). view apparent tension approach decision Fifth Circuit, Ford 618 357, 360 361, n. (1980) (suggesting respecting sort assesses liability), we certiorari, 527 1067 (1999). II 8 parties renew us contentions advanced below. Government submits §§6513(b)(1) which, noted, Baral, hand, urges cannot meaning value definitively fixed). requisite assessment either files (here 1993) §6201, formally 1993), though seems prefer latter date. Brief Petitioner 9 ("Payment occurred earliest first became known, precisely assessed"). agree §6513(b)(1) settle matter. set provisions full: 10 "(b) Prepaid Income 11 "For section 6511 6512 12 "(1) Any deducted source chapter 24 shall, recipient income, him 31. 13 "(2) last prescribed 6012 (determined without regard return)." 14 "paid": taxpayer, referenced §6012 together §6072(a) require like likewise statutorily payment dates "[f]or 6511," case. means (the tax) fall before, hence outside, (February 1990, 15 disputes reading §6513(b). He claims establish "deemed paid" sense prescribe crucial inquiry (On view, return.) evident, says, significance Treasury Regulations place CFR 301.6315 (1999) ("The aggregate payments should entered against shown return"); §301.6402 3(a)(1) (providing "in taxes, appropriate return"), fact Code's regarding found different subtitles (C F, respectively) governing (A). 16 disagree. Withholding right, Thus, §31(a)(1) allowed [income] tax," §6315 "[p]ayment installment thereof, considered account subtitle year." Similarly, one regulations cited explains estimate made." (emphasis added). fails, moreover, give 6513. exists concerns credits refunds, result (such liability, §6401. concepts freestanding Not surprisingly, caption §6513(b) describes "[p]repaid tax." 17 Taking metaphysical tack, contends here, supra, because concept "defined, fixed assessment," occur §6151(a) ("[T]he person required make [a tax] notice demand Secretary, pay return" added)); §6213(b)(4) ("Any receipt payment" added)). Nor does argument find our 658 (1945), where §6511's predecessor estate To sure, endorse petitioner's occurs assessment:"It [the] erroneous gave rise refund. there could start running presenting claim. responsible application balance credited petitioners suspense ." Id., 661. 18 Rosenman, unlike ones governed akin §6513, therefore occasion consider implications determining §6511. ibid. (noting "no extraneous aids construction attention"). Moreover, if quoted passage represented holding, broadly rejected Government's made, instead rejecting argument, did, accord "tenor" "business transaction," id., 663.1 19 observe, finally, extent taxpayers returns overpayment. always assess receiving return; do so, 6501(a) (1994 ed., Supp. III). allow overpayments once 6611 ed. III), accrue Fortunately rejects setting. Section 6611(d) determined according 5, plainly year.2 20 * 21 For foregoing reasons, affirm 22 ordered. Notes 23 1. Central analysis able treat same statute limitations disadvantaging decreasing deposit accrual starting U.S., 662 663. Indeed, suggested amendment Codedisapproving treatment deposits change analysis. 663 (citing Current Payment Act 1943, §4(d), 57 Stat. 140) (presently codified 6401(c)). 2. need address proper Such include audit stop penalties, see, Moran 63 (CA7 1995). situation, often desire even forfeiting preserve jurisdiction depends existence deficiency, 6213 deficiency wiped payment. note promulgated procedures govern classification context. Rev. Proc. 84 58, 1984 Cum. Bull. 501.

Category: 11