- 21 -
jurisdiction to order the refund of such overpayment
and interest. * * *
Were we to allow respondent to reduce the refund of an
overpayment by an amount that should have already been factored
into determining the amount of the overpayment, we would, in
effect, be allowing respondent to disregard the amount of the
overpayment in our final decision. That would do violence to the
definition of the term “overpayment” and ignore the binding
nature of our final decision. Our decision was clear: the
estate overpaid its estate tax by $238,847.24. Respondent’s
position that he is reducing the refund of the overpayment by the
amount of assessed but unpaid underpayment interest simply fails
to recognize that underpayment interest is part of the
calculation that must be made in arriving at the amount of an
overpayment.
We hold that we have jurisdiction over the estate’s motion
under section 6512(b)(2) and that sections 6402 and 6512(b)(4) do
not apply where our final decision in the same case precludes the
existence of the tax liabilities to which the Commissioner
attempts to apply the overpayment.17
17In an opinion issued before the enactment of sec.
6512(b)(4), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit observed:
These provisions [regarding our deficiency
jurisdiction], taken together with �6512(b)(1),
authorize the Tax Court definitively to determine the
amount of any deficiency and overpayment for a taxable
year brought before it by a taxpayer petition, and
provide for the court to take into account any prior
(continued...)
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011