Discussion:Time return deemed filed and tax considered paid
From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.
From TaxAlmanac
Discussion Forum Index --> Advanced Tax Questions --> Time return deemed filed and tax considered paid
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Time return deemed filed and tax considered paid
| 12 September 2008 | |
| I just took over a new client and have to prepare tax returns for 2004-2007.(Ugh) The client never received any correspondance relating to these non-filed returns(assessment letters etc.). For the year 2004 he has approved extensions that allowed him to file up to October 15,2005. He had no FIT withholding but none the less appears to have a large refund because of 4 kids and the refundable child tax credit.
If I file the 2004 return before October 15,2008 will he be eligible for this refund. I initially thought yes but a review of Sec. 6513(a)seems to imdicate that the extension of time granted is not taken in to consideration. Any thought are greatly appreciated. | |
| 12 September 2008 | |
| No. Sec. 6511(a): refund or credit only within 2 years of date paid. Too bad. So sad. -- Larry Hess, CPA | Albuquerque, NM | |
| 12 September 2008 | |
| Actually the refund turned into a pumpkin April 15, 2008, three years from the original unextended due date. Requesting that the overpayment be applied to the next year won't work either because all that represents is instructions on how you want to spend it.
2005 will go next April 15. If the return was audited, the taxpayer would be entitled to the credit against any deficiency. | |
| 12 September 2008 | |
| If he files by 10/15/08, he will satisfy the 6511(a) requirements (three years from the filing of the original return) since the refund claim is being filed as part of the original return, as well as the 6511(b) 3-year lookback rule since the extension gives him an additional 6 months. See Sec. 6511(b)(2)(A).
There should be no problem with this refund. | |
| 12 September 2008 | |
| Thanks for that, Riley. -- Larry Hess, CPA | Albuquerque, NM | |
| 12 September 2008 | |
| Riley2 is correct except that it would have required two extensions for the 2004 return. | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 12 September 2008 |
| But he says he has an approved extension(s) which sounds like he filed a second extension August 15th and it was approved. | |
| 13 September 2008 | |
| When I talked to IRS this morning they stated they had an approved copy on file of the 2nd extension which took my client to October 15,2005 but no copy of the initial extension which would only take him to August 15,2005 . Don't think this is a big issue as it is my understanding they would not approve the 2nd extension unless the first was received and on file. They are going to send me a transcript of the approved 2nd extension which I may include with the original filing. | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 13 September 2008 |
| This discussion is very valuable; for years I would file my client "Ilsa Lund" on October 15th three years after the deadline. Every year she would have two extensions, the first filed certified mail and the second would be returned approved. Every year her overpayment was approved, though twice the Service tried to claim the return was filed late. The postal receipts dated October 15th showed this to be untrue. So as I read this discussion, I began to wonder the name of the god was protecting Ilsa, but thanks to Riley, I see that Ilsa and I were correct in our original assumptions. | |
To join in on this discussion, you must first
log in.
