- 19 -
The question of the scope of this Court's jurisdiction under
former section 6621(c) arose in White v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. at
212-214, involving a so-called affected items proceeding. In
White, the Commissioner issued a notice of deficiency to the
taxpayers solely for additions to tax after the underlying tax
deficiency was assessed following the conclusion of partnership
level proceedings. The taxpayers filed a petition contesting the
additions to tax as well as their liability for additional
interest under former section 6621(c). This prompted the
Commissioner to file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
as to the additional interest.
In granting the Commissioner's motion to dismiss in White,
we first held, based upon a combined reading of sections 6211(a),
6230(a), and 6601(e)(1), that interest computed at the increased
rate prescribed in former section 6621(c)(1) is not a deficiency
within the meaning of section 6211(a). Consistent with this
holding, we rejected the taxpayers' argument that section
6230(a)(2)(A)(i) provided statutory authority for this Court to
redetermine such interest. Next, we analyzed former section
6621(c)(4) and concluded that our jurisdiction under that
provision is limited to cases where the parties dispute a
deficiency in tax imposed by subtitle A, and, specifically, to
determining whether a portion of such a deficiency constitutes a
substantial underpayment attributable to tax-motivated
transactions. In other words, Congress granted this Court
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011