- 8 -
procedures, may bring a proceeding in the appropriate U.S.
District Court for the determination of his liability for such
penalty. Section 6703(b) specifies that the deficiency
procedures do not apply to the assessment or collection of such
penalty. Thus the U.S. District Court, and not the Tax Court,
has exclusive jurisdiction to consider the merits of a frivolous
return penalty. We reject petitioner's contention that we should
consider the merits of the frivolous return penalties imposed.
Petitioner also contends that this Court should make a
determination for the amount of interest due on the overpayment.
Petitioner's contention is premature. Section 6512(b) gives this
Court jurisdiction to enforce the refund of an overpayment, with
interest, upon a motion by the taxpayer if, after 120 days after
the decision of the Court has become final, the Secretary has
failed to refund the overpayment determined by the Court together
with interest thereon. See also Rule 260. Thus, petitioner must
wait to receive the refund and then and only then if there is a
dispute, make a timely petition to the Court to review the amount
of the refund, including the calculation of interest.
The parties herein agree that the purported 1988 tax return
filed with respondent on August 16, 1989, constitutes a claim for
refund for $22,945.28, which had not been disallowed on or before
the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency.
Accordingly, we have jurisdiction to find, and do find, that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011