- 4 -
v. Commissioner, supra. Petitioner obviously assumes that we
would deny its motion to redetermine interest on the authority of
that case. It seeks to avoid this result by suggesting in its
motion to withdraw that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit, to which an appeal of this case would lie, would hold
that we did not have jurisdiction over petitioner's motion to
redetermine interest, at a time when a remedy in another forum
might be barred by the 2-year period of limitations on suits for
refund after a denial by respondent of the claim for refund.2
With due regard for petitioner's resourcefulness in seeking to
avoid adverse precedent in this case, for the reasons hereinafter
stated, we are not persuaded to follow its blandishments. In
reaching this conclusion, we note that any question as to our
jurisdiction existed at the time the motion to redetermine
interest herein was filed, and if, indeed, it presented as
serious a problem as petitioner now seeks to portray, petitioner
should not have filed such motion in the first place, but rather
should have sought relief from one of the other forums to which
it now seeks to go.
2 Petitioner does not elaborate on this assertion.
However, it would appear to rest on the prohibition set forth in
sec. 6512(a) against bringing a suit for refund while a
proceeding is pending in this Court with the result that any suit
for refund would be dismissed, exposing petitioner to the running
of the 2-year period of limitations on any subsequent suit for
such refund instituted after action by the Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011