- 66 -
accrued on this item at the section 6621(c) rate. On opening
brief, petitioners contend that the section 6621(c) rate should
apply to only $1,137 of this item. On answering brief,
respondent concedes that the section 6621(c) rate should apply to
only $1,137 of the $1,144 additional assessment.
These agreements are to be given effect in the computation
under Rule 155. As to any other questions regarding the section
6621(c) rate, we note that the parties’ settlement in
petitioners’ deficiency case includes the determination that:
the entire underpayment in income tax for the taxable years
1978, 1979, 1981 and 1982 is a substantial underpayment
attributable to tax-motivated transactions for purposes of
computing the interest payable with respect to such amount
pursuant to I.R.C. � 6621(c), formerly I.R.C. � 6621(d);
This agreement by the parties in petitioners’ deficiency case was
part of the decision we entered disposing of that case.
Apart from the above-noted stipulation and the above-noted
concession, we hold for respondent on this issue.
III. The $40,000 Offer in Compromise
In May 1996 (supra note 8) petitioners sent to respondent a
check in the amount of $40,000 as part of an offer in compromise
to settle their interest liability for 1978, 1979, 1981, and
1982. At Fish’s request, on September 4, 1996, petitioners
withdrew their offer in compromise. At some point, probably in
December 1996, possibly in January 1997, respondent refunded to
petitioners the $40,000, without interest.
Page: Previous 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011