- 25 -
payment of the tax as initially shown on the returns. Certainly,
the ITC is a payment of the tax as ultimately determined by this
Court. The fact that the ultimate decision by this Court as to
petitioner's tax liability was delayed by the litigation process
is irrelevant.
It is clear that these rulings reinforce petitioner's
position and the application herein of the general rule of
Manning v. Seeley Tube & Box Co., supra, and section 6601, that
"the underlying objective is to determine in a given situation
whose money it is and how long the other party had use of it."
Rev. Rul. 82-172, 1982-2 C.B. 397. If respondent had use of
petitioner's money, even in the form of a credit, during the
relevant period, then respondent must take account of that money
in computing interest on any deficiency. See also Rev. Rul. 85-
65, 1985-1 C.B. 366; Tech. Adv. Mem. 83-26-001 (Feb. 25, 1983);
Tech. Adv. Mem. 86-24-002 (Dec. 5, 1985); Tech. Adv. Mem. 94-43-
007 (May 19, 1994).17
There are two exceptions to this general rule. See G.C.M.
39,359 (May 14, 1985). The first exception occurs in the case
where there is "clear legislative expression" indicating that the
17 "[A]lthough the petitioners are not entitled to rely
upon unpublished private rulings which were not issued
specifically to them, such rulings do reveal the interpretation
put upon the statute by the agency charged with the
responsibility of administering the revenue laws." Hanover Bank
v. Commissioner, 369 U.S. 672, 686 (1962) (fn. refs. omitted).
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