- 15 -
proper application of the 1979 ITC only affects interest, we had
no jurisdiction to decide the issue during the main deficiency
proceeding. Pen Coal Corp. v. Commissioner, 107 T.C. 249, 255
(1996). Thus, petitioner cannot be accused of raising a "new"
issue that it could not have brought up before.
Moreover, this is not a Rule 155 proceeding, and
respondent's argument on this point reveals a misunderstanding of
the nature of the relief petitioner is requesting, and a
misapprehension of the difference between Rules 155 and 261. The
purpose of a computation under Rule 155 is to show "the correct
amount of the deficiency, liability, or overpayment to be entered
as the decision." Rule 155(a). If there is disagreement between
the parties, the Court will determine the correct computation,
and argument on that point is "confined strictly to consideration
of the correct computation of the deficiency, liability, or
overpayment resulting from the findings and conclusions made by
the Court". Rule 155(c). Not only does Rule 155 not contemplate
that a computation thereunder should reflect interest amounts,
but, contrary to respondent's arguments on brief, the Rule does
not allow arguments as to any other issues beyond the issues
litigated in respect of the ultimate bottom-line deficiency,
liability, or overpayment for the years at issue.
Rule 261(d), on the other hand, specifically contemplates
"bona fide factual dispute[s]" which would have to be addressed
by an evidentiary hearing. This Rule implies that this Court
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011