- 16 -
Petitioner nevertheless argues that this Court has
jurisdiction to review such assessments under section 6621(c)(4).
Section 6621(c)(4) provides as follows:
(4) Jurisdiction of Tax Court.--In the case of any
proceeding in the Tax Court for a redetermination of a
deficiency, the Tax Court shall also have jurisdiction to
determine the portion (if any) of such deficiency which is a
substantial underpayment attributable to tax motivated
transactions.
Respondent presumably determined that the underlying deficiency
in this case was a substantial underpayment attributable to a
tax-motivated transaction. This Court does not have jurisdiction
to review the underlying deficiency, however, because it was a
computational adjustment made pursuant to an adjustment to a
partnership item determined in a partnership proceeding. See
Saso v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 730, 734 (1989). Thus, because the
underlying deficiency is not before this Court, section
6621(c)(4) cannot confer jurisdiction on this Court to determine
what portion of such underlying deficiency is attributable to a
tax-motivated transaction. Furthermore, although each addition
to tax at issue in this case is a “deficiency” within the meaning
of section 6621(c)(4), section 6621(c)(2) excludes additions to
tax from the definition of “substantial underpayment attributable
to tax motivated transactions,” thereby precluding review under
section 6621(c)(4). See White v. Commissioner, supra at 216.
Petitioner further argues that this Court has jurisdiction
over this matter because the amount assessed by respondent under
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011