Ezel / IRS Rulings / 200922034

CCA 200922034: Tax payment could not later be relabeled as a deposit for quick recovery

Number
200922034
Outcome
Advice
Document type
Chief Counsel Advice
IRS subject
Deposits
Topics
Procedure, penalties, and administration
Code sections
§ 6603
Ruling dated
April 22, 2009
Publicly released
May 29, 2009
Source
View Official PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page covers legal advice the IRS Office of Chief Counsel wrote for IRS staff, issued in 2009, which can't be cited as precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current Code and IRS guidance say, with citations.

Currency note: this determination was released in 2009
Statutory amendments, regulation changes, court decisions, or later IRS guidance may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current tax advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or position mentioned here.
Not precedent. Under 26 U.S.C. § 6110(k)(3), this written determination may not be used or cited as precedent. It is advice from the IRS Office of Chief Counsel to IRS personnel on the facts they presented, and identifying details were redacted by the IRS before release. The official IRS release (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source.
About this page: The plain-English summary and ruling snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official IRS release. The full text is the IRS's own document.
View official IRS release (PDF)

Plain-English summary

Chief Counsel rejected a taxpayer's attempt to designate an old remittance as a deposit after financial difficulties created a need to recover money. The email explained that procedures existed for making deposits and that a remittance was a payment when those procedures were not followed. In the described case, the taxpayer had intended a payment when sending the money. The available course was to file a refund claim so that the government could evaluate its merits, rather than change the remittance's classification with hindsight.

Ruling snapshot

  • Question: Could a taxpayer later recast an intended tax payment as a deposit to recover the money?
  • Outcome: Advice given: no; seek recovery through a refund claim.
  • Key authorities: IRC § 6603 deposit context; Rev. Proc. 2005-18 identified in the email subject.

Full text (IRS public release)

ID: CCA-422207-09 Number: 200922034
Release Date: 5/29/2009
Office: --------------
UILC: 6603.00-00

From: ----------------------
Sent: April 22, 2009
To: -------------------------
Cc:
Subject: RP 2005-18

You asked whether a taxpayer may, with hindsight, "designate" a payment as a "deposit" long after the payment was actually made if the taxpayer is in financial difficulties and wants to get some money from the government. The answer is no.

Procedures exist for making a deposit. If those procedures are not followed, the remittance is a payment. In the case you described, the taxpayer intended the remittance to be a payment. -------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The taxpayer's recourse is to file a claim for refund and to permit the government to evaluate the claim on its merits. ----------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please feel free to contact me with further questions.

What does the Code say today, for your facts?

This advice was written for IRS staff and cannot be cited. Ezel checks the current Internal Revenue Code and IRS guidance against your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace