- 43 -
rule applies if a taxpayer pays the additional interest and
invokes our overpayment jurisdiction. See sec. 6512(b); Barton
v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 548 (1991).
From the foregoing, it is apparent that, for taxable years
governed by the TEFRA partnership procedures, taxpayers do not
have a prepayment forum within which to contest their liability
for additional interest under section 6621 where such interest
has accrued on a tax deficiency assessed as a computational
adjustment following a partnership level proceeding.16 See
Affiliated Equipment Leasing II v. Commissioner, supra at 579.
It is this lack of a prepayment forum that petitioners view as
violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
We begin by observing that once we decide that there is a
tax-motivated transaction such as a valuation overstatement or a
sham or fraudulent transaction, the determination of additional
interest is largely mechanical. See Copeland v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2000-181; see also Thomas v. United States, 166 F.3d
825, 834 (6th Cir. 1999), holding that if a transaction is tax-
motivated within the meaning of section 6621(c), the individual
taxpayer-investor’s motive is irrelevant.
16 By contrast, where a tax deficiency falls within our
deficiency jurisdiction, taxpayers may contest their liability
for additional interest under sec. 6621 before this Court in the
context of a deficiency action without first paying the interest.
See e.g., sec. 6621(c)(4); Carroll v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2000-184, finding the taxpayers liable for additional interest
for the taxable year 1981.
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011