9
and the recapture of the investment credit in 1984 operate as a
double disallowance of credit. Thus, petitioners claim that
there was an overpayment of tax in 1984. Petitioners argue that
the taxes assessed for 1982 and 1983 should be offset by the
amount of taxes paid by petitioners in 1984 with respect to the
investment credit recapture.
Respondent argues that the Court is without jurisdiction to
consider petitioners' mitigation argument because (1) the tax
years 1982 and 1983 are open and the provisions do not apply to
those years and (2) the tax year 1984 is not before the Court.
Where applicable, the mitigation provisions permit the
correction of an item that is shown to be erroneous by a
determination in an administrative or judicial proceeding
relating to another year. Fruit of the Loom, Inc. v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-492, affd. 72 F.3d 1338 (7th Cir.
1996). If the mitigation provisions apply, the taxable income
for the year of the error may be adjusted under section 1314.
Sec. 1311(a). Petitioners allege that the recapture of the tax
credit in 1984 was erroneous. However, the tax year 1984 is not
before us, and we lack jurisdiction to redetermine whether
petitioners overpaid their income tax liability for that year.
Sec. 6214(b). Furthermore, we do not believe that the mitigation
provisions permit the relief sought by petitioners in this
proceeding. If the adjustment determined under section 1314
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011