Michael J. Heckler, a.k.a. Michael Vonheckler and Charlotte A. Miska - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         

          paid on February 20, 1996, represents the full amount of the                
          interest due on the tax deficiency of $6,054 computed from April            
          15, 1987 (the due date of petitioners' 1986 tax return) to March            
          18, 1991 (the date that petitioners executed a waiver of                    
          restrictions as to assessment and collection in docket No. 11547-           
          90).                                                                        
          During the hearing on this matter, respondent asserted that                 
          the $5,926.35 amount listed as due in the notice of intent to               
          levy dated June 10, 1996, represents the balance due from                   
          petitioners for interest computed at the increased rate                     
          prescribed in section 6621(c) after taking into the account the             
          $3,240.60 that petitioners paid on February 20, 1996.  Respondent           
          argued that such interest was properly assessed and that the                
          Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the matter in this case.               
               By order dated August 30, 1996, respondent was directed to             
          file a memorandum addressing the jurisdictional matters discussed           
          at the hearing, including whether the Court has the authority to            
          consider petitioners' liability for interest computed at the                
          increased rate prescribed in section 6621(c) pursuant to the                
          Court's authority to determine an overpayment under section                 
          6512(b).  Barton v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 548 (1991).  In                   
          addition, petitioner was given the opportunity to file a response           
          to respondent's objection and/or file a memorandum addressing the           
          scope of the Court's jurisdiction in this proceeding.                       





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011