Sunoco, Inc. and Subsidiaries - Page 22
Legal Research Home >
US Tax Court > 2004 > Sunoco, Inc. and Subsidiaries - Page 22
- 22 -
There was no compulsion to so restrictively read
this language. This Court could have read the
phrase “overpayment of tax” as part of the
threshold necessary to be able to further enable
the Tax Court “to determine the amount of such
overpayment.” There was no compelling reason to
interpret the word “tax” to exclude additions to
the tax or interest. There was, instead, reason
to consider interest as part of an overpayment.
* * * But these opinions have failed to recognize
that Congress has legislatively provided for the
exceptional situation where, after a deficiency
has been determined and the taxpayer has
petitioned the Tax Court, an overpayment results.
Although there is no legislative history to
assist us, it is hard to imagine that Congress
could have intended to bifurcate an “overpayment”
by limiting the taxpayer’s refund to “tax” only.
It is equally hard to imagine that an “overpay-
ment” has a different meaning depending upon
the forum. Either of those approaches would
force some taxpayers to resolve a single tax
controversy in two different forums. Strangely,
those forced to unreasonably duplicate their
costs and efforts would be the lucky ones
because, as in this case, others would be barred
from recovery of the interest portion of the
overpayment due to their failure and/or inability
to make a timely claim.
Id. at 456-457.
In passing, we note that Estate of Baumgardner was a
reviewed Opinion of the Court that has been consistently
followed for more than 18 years since it was issued.
See Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 291
(1998) (underpayment interest under section 6601 is part
of an overpayment); Bachner v. Commissioner, 109 T.C. 125,
128 (1997) (the term “overpayment” is not defined in terms
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011