Discussion:Looking for the Ruling...
From TaxAlmanac
Discussion Forum Index --> Basic Tax Questions --> Looking for the Ruling...
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Looking for the Ruling...
Harry Boscoe (talk|edits) said: | 22 October 2009 |
| Can someone point me towards the IRS ruling that the Underestimated Tax Penalty - Form 2210 - can't be recomputed on a later amended return. Thanks.
I have dutifully tried The Yellow Box of Search but I get either Everything or Nothing. Operator Error, I'm sure, but I don't have time to learn new tricks... Refrigpbrerator. | |
| 22 October 2009 | |
| I'm busy backpeddling right now. When I get to where I've come from, I'll let you know.
Greyhound Bus Agent: "To where?" Kid: "Why to here, of course!" | |
| 22 October 2009 | |
Can't help you with the ruling but here's a paragraph from the instructions:
Wait for D&T, though, he's seen it in action (here). | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 22 October 2009 |
| http://www.legalbitstream.com/scripts/isyswebext.dll?op=get&uri=/isysquery/irl27d0/1/doc
Rev Ruling 83-36 Found it given by Riley in Discussion: Penalty Abatement | |
| 22 October 2009 | |
| See Sec. 6654 IRC. The estimated tax penalty is based in part on the required annual payment defined in Sec. 6654(d)(1)(B)
i) 90 percent of the tax shown on the return for the taxable year (or, if no return is filed, 90 percent of the tax for such year), or
| |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 22 October 2009 |
| And this raises a rather Harry-like question:
Do you ask because you are amending the current return and the penalty could be changed, or did you amend the prior year return and found the estimated tax requirement for the current year had changed? | |
RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said: | 22 October 2009 |
| "For this purpose, the taxpayer's original return is the last return, including an amended return, filed on or before the due date (including extensions) of the return for the taxable year. Rev. Rul. 83-36, 1983-1 C.B. 358. An amended return filed after the due date is not taken into account. The tax shown on the return is not recalculated to the correct tax liability, even where the original return was fraudulent. Schwarzkopf v. Commissioner, 246 F.2d 731 (3d Cir. 1957)" | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 22 October 2009 |
| And that is what Riley said in the earlier discussion, too, Roy! Great minds think alike! | |
Harry Boscoe (talk|edits) said: | 23 October 2009 |
| Thankstoallwhohelpedmehere. Drinks on me.
Especially, thanks and a tip of the hat to D&T who not only coughed up the Rev Rul and a discussion of it and a link to it, but even anticipated that it was the *preceding* year's return that was being amended and - get this! - referred to that issue as "a rather Harry-like question." Goldang, that's awesome. Almost like as if it's possible that maybe .. I've arrived. If it's not PBR, I'm not drinking it. Meet you in the kitchen. | |


