- 24 -
significant event that gave rise to the year 1 refund and the
year 2 overpayment was the year 4 NOL and that the taxpayer was
entitled to interest on both amounts only after the last day of
year 4. Consistent with Rev. Rul. 66-317, supra, the ruling also
holds that the taxpayer did not have to pay interest on the
amount of its tax liability originally satisfied by the ITC from
year 3 to year 4, but then replaced by the NOL. The ruling
specifically notes that "the obligation to pay * * * must be
considered sequentially." Rev. Rul. 82-172, 1982-2 C.B. 397,
398.
According to respondent, the use-of-money principle
illustrated in the revenue rulings only applies where there is a
fixed liability. In this case, respondent's position is that,
because of the course of the litigation, the final liability for
1977 and 1978 did not become fixed until after the 1982 NOL
arose, which, by way of carryback, eliminated the use of any
amounts of ITC to reduce that liability, or reduce interim
interest charged. Respondent's analysis is fundamentally flawed.
While it is true that petitioner's final liability was fixed
by the 1994 decision of this Court, that decision, like all Tax
Court decisions, relates back to the time the liability arose.
That is, the effect of a decision of this Court is that a
deficiency or overpayment is found to exist in the amount
determined by this Court for all purposes, including interest.
There is no question that the ITC in question qualified as a
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011