- 8 -
Overpayment jurisdiction depends on whether we have jurisdiction
to find that "there is no deficiency" or "that there is a
deficiency." Barton v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 548, 552 (1991).
Respondent has issued a notice of deficiency containing a
determination that petitioner is liable for deficiencies in
income tax for 1988 through 1991. Petitioner filed a timely
petition. Therefore, we have jurisdiction and are required to
find that there either is or is not a deficiency for each of the
years 1988 through 1991. Estate of Baumgardner v. Commissioner,
85 T.C. 445, 448 (1985). It follows that we also have
jurisdiction to determine whether petitioner has made
overpayments of income tax for the same years. Sec. 6512(b);
Barton v. Commissioner, supra at 552.
An "overpayment" of tax can include interest. Section
6601(e)(1) provides that interest shall be treated as tax and
that any reference in title 26 to the term "tax" shall be deemed
also to refer to "interest". The lone exception to this rule is
that interest is not considered a tax for purposes of determining
a "deficiency".4 Sec. 6601(e)(1). As we stated in Barton v.
4Historically, the Tax Court generally did not have
jurisdiction to redetermine the amount of interest on a
deficiency. Sec. 6601(e) excludes interest from the definition
of "tax" imposed under sec. 6211(a) and, therefore, interest is
not part of a "deficiency." White v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 209,
213-214 (1990). However under sec. 7481(c), our jurisdiction may
now be invoked to redetermine interest related to a deficiency by
filing a motion within 1 year after the date our decision becomes
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011