- 71 -
i. Code sections are no obstacle to recoupment
Section 6214(a) grants this Court “jurisdiction to
redetermine the correct amount of a deficiency”. Deficiency, as
defined in section 6211, depends generally on the relationship
between the amount of the tax imposed on the taxpayer and the
amount the taxpayer showed as the tax on the tax return. In
Mueller II, when the parties argued the case on the assumption
that petitioner would have a deficiency, respondent argued that
these sections did not authorize us to use equitable recoupment
to adjust petitioner's deficiency. We decided in Mueller II
that, even if petitioner should have a deficiency, we have
authority to apply equitable recoupment. We recently reaffirmed
that conclusion in Estate of Bartels v. Commissioner, 106 T.C.
430 (1996).
There is less restriction on our overpayment jurisdiction
under section 6512(b). Although section 6512(b)(1) does require
that the overpayment have been made by “the taxpayer”, and the
Administration Trust is not the same as petitioner, the identity
of interest that I would find, and the fact that the
Administration Trust has paid and is responsible for the estate
tax on transfers of the shares held by and appointed to it,
satisfy this requirement, given the nature and purposes of
equitable recoupment.
Moreover, the requirements of section 6512(b)(3), which sets
time limits on any credit or refund, and whose restrictions
Page: Previous 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011