- 25 -
Positions of the Parties
Petitioner concedes it was liable to repay respondent the
tentative refunds but contends respondent is barred from
recovering the tentative refunds through the deficiency
procedures. According to petitioner, both the bankruptcy court
and this Court in Interlake Corp. v. Commissioner, supra, held
petitioner was not an authorized recipient of the tentative
refunds. Therefore, petitioner argues, the tentative refunds
were nonrebate refunds, and respondent’s resort to the deficiency
procedures to recover them is unavailing.
With respect to the stipulation of settled issues,
petitioner argues that an agreement of the parties may not confer
jurisdiction on the Court to address and order the payment of
items outside the Court’s jurisdiction. Inasmuch as nonrebate
refunds do not enter into the computation of a “deficiency”, and
our jurisdiction is limited to redetermination of deficiencies,2
petitioner contends we have no jurisdiction to enter a decision
on the stipulation of settled issues.
Petitioner also contends respondent is collaterally estopped
by the bankruptcy court’s opinion with respect to 1985 from
arguing that the tentative refunds with respect to 1981 and 1984
were not nonrebate refunds.
2Of course, our jurisdiction includes other issues not
germane to the case at hand. See, e.g., sec. 6330(d).
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011