26 U.S.C. § 6407
Date of allowance of refund or credit
The date on which the Secretary first authorizes the scheduling of an overassessment in respect of any internal revenue tax shall be considered as the date of allowance of refund or credit in respect of such tax.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2021 · leading case: Computervision v. U.S. [Supplemental Order], 467 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Computervision v. U.S. [Supplemental Order], 467 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “§ 2401 (2000); 26 U.S.C. § 6407 ; Barnes v. United States, 133 Ct.”
Hankerson v. United States Dep't of Educ. (In Re Hankerson), 133 B.R. 711 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1991). “In that case, the Honorable Bernard Markovitz cites to 26 U.S.C. § 6407 and holds that a taxpayer is not deemed to have received a tax refund “until the Secretary’s delegate authorized the scheduling of the overas-sessment.”
John Vishnevsky & Margaret Vishnevsky v. United States, 581 F.2d 1249 (7th Cir. 1978). “” 26 U.S.C. § 6407 . Applying the plain language of this provision, which the Government conveniently ignores, to the facts of this rather unique case, we hold that a refund or credit was allowed here on July 10, 1972.”
United States v. MacPhail, 149 F. App'x 449 (6th Cir. 2005). “Furthermore, under 26 U.S.C. § 6407 , an overpayment credit does not exist until the IRS authorizes the refund or credit.”
In Re Glenn, 198 B.R. 106 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1996). “” That IRC section provides as follows: The date on which the Secretary first authorizes the scheduling of an overassessment in respect of any internal revenue tax shall be considered as the date of allowance of refund or credit in respect of such tax.”
Gen. Instrument Corp. v. United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 4 (Fed. Cl. 1995). “The substance of this provision is now codified as 26 U.S.C. § 6407 (1993). . I.R.C. § 6611 provides: In the case of a refund, [interest is due] from the date of the overpayment to a date (to be determined by the Secretary) preceding the date of the refund check by not more than…”
Parker Hannifin Corp. v. United States, 71 Fed. Cl. 231 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “” Further support is found in 26 U.S.C. § 6407 , stating that “[t]he date on which the Secretary first authorizes the scheduling of an overassessment in respect of any internal revenue tax shall be considered as the date of allowance of refund or credit in respect of such tax.”
Philadelphia & Reading Corp. v. United States, 738 F. Supp. 143 (D. Del. 1990). “” 26 U.S.C. § 6407 . Furthermore, because both of the overpayments exceeded $100,000, the Secretary at that time could not sanction the scheduling of the overas-sessments until a report was submitted to the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation of the United States…”
Overseas Thread Indus., Ltd. v. United States, 48 Fed. Cl. 221 (Fed. Cl. 2000). “§ 1.1461-2 (b). The regulation requires the filing of this form on or before March 15 to report withholdings in the preceding calendar year.”
Lunnon v. United States (D.N.M. 2021). “12 Plaintiff attached a Declaration to his Motion for Summary Judgment in which he declares that the United States did not disclose Notices of Deficiency as part of its initial disclosures, that he has not found any “over-assessment schedules” as described in 26 U.S.C. § 6407 ,…”
United States v. Szopa, 38 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (N.D. Ill. 1999). “In support of this argument, the Szopas cite to 26 U.S.C. § 6407 , which provides that “[t]he date on which the Secretary first authorizes the scheduling of an overassessment in respect of any internal revenue tax shall be considered as the date of allowance of refund or credit…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.