- 5 -
1, 6-7 (1997); Asciutto v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-564,
affd. 26 F.3d 108 (9th Cir. 1994).4
Petitioner bases his motion to redetermine interest on our
prior decision in this case. See ASA Investerings Pship. v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-305, affd. 201 F.3d 505 (D.C. Cir.
2000). Our prior decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court
denied certiorari on October 2, 2000, 531 U.S. 871 (2000). Our
decision became final on October 2, 2000. Sec. 7481(a)(2)(B).
Petitioner mailed its motion to redetermine interest on October
1, 2001; thus, the motion was timely. Sec. 7481(c)(1); Rule
261(a)(2). Petitioner claims, and respondent does not dispute,
that it has paid the entire amount of the deficiency plus
interest. Accordingly, the only issue in the instant case is
whether respondent has assessed a deficiency and interest under
section 6215.
4Sec. 7481(c) was added to the Code by the Technical and
Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-647, sec. 6246(a),
102 Stat. 3751. On Aug. 5, 1997, the Taxpayer Relief Act of
1997, Pub. L. 105-34, 111 Stat. 788, 1054, revised sec. 7481(c)
to provide for the filing of a “motion” rather than a “petition”
and to clarify that our jurisdiction includes underpayments of
interest by the Commissioner. See H. Conf. Rept. 105-220, at
732-733 (1997), 1997-4 C.B. (Vol. 2) 1457, 2202-2203. Many of
our prior opinions, including Bankamerica Corp. v. Commissioner,
supra, addressed sec. 7481(c) as originally enacted. However,
the same three requirements we identified in the original
enactment are still apparent in revised sec. 7481(c), including
the requirement that an assessment has been made under sec. 6215.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011