- 35 -
overpayment jurisdiction regarding the same year. See
Commissioner v. Lundy, 516 U.S. 235 (1996).6
When it enacted section 183(e)(4), Congress limited the
effect of the section 183(e)(4) extension to assessments
attributable to section 183 activity. However, if the section
183(e)(4) extension is construed to also apply to refund claims,
unintended consequences may arise. In a refund context, it is
possible that matters other than the putative section 183
activity could be placed in issue by the Commissioner, even
though such matters would be time barred for purposes of
assessing a deficiency. For example, in Bachner v. Commissioner,
109 T.C. 125 (1997), the taxpayer filed a petition in this Court
contesting a notice of deficiency and claiming an overpayment of
all taxes withheld from his wages. The assessment of the
deficiency determined by the Commissioner was barred by the
statute of limitations. Nevertheless, the Commissioner argued
that any overpayment was restricted to the excess of the amount
6Conversely, in Barton v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 548 (1991),
we held that statutes governing our overpayment jurisdiction gave
us authority to determine whether the taxpayer was liable for
sec. 6621(c) increased interest, whereas in White v.
Commissioner, 95 T.C. 209 (1990), we held that we lacked
deficiency jurisdiction to determine whether a taxpayer was
liable for sec. 6621(c) increased interest. Those different
outcomes were based on the literal differences between the
provisions of the Code controlling our jurisdiction over
overpayments and deficiencies.
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011