Estate of Algerine Allen Smith, Deceased, James Allen Smith, Executor - Page 18

                                       - 18 -                                         
          interest paid with respect to the deficiency * * * is also an               
          overpayment.”14  Sec. 301.6611-1(c), Proced. & Admin. Regs.                 
               In order to determine whether or not an overpayment exists,            
          we must first determine the proper amount of tax.15  In light of            
          the above-cited cases and section 301.6611-1(b), Proced. & Admin.           
          Regs., we hold that for purposes of determining an overpayment of           
          tax pursuant to section 6512(b), the proper tax includes                    
          underpayment interest and that the amount of an overpayment is              


               14The Chief Counsel’s National Office echoes this position             
          in field service advice:  “Although payments of underpayment                
          interest are not considered in determining a deficiency, they can           
          be weighed in determining whether an overpayment exists.”  Field            
          Serv. Adv. 2000-12049 (Mar. 24, 2000).                                      
               15We have held that in making an overpayment determination,            
          the tax which is “properly due” is the correct amount of tax,               
          regardless of whether the correct tax has been or could be                  
          assessed at the time of our decision.  See Bachner v.                       
          Commissioner, 109 T.C. 125 (1997), affd. without published                  
          opinion 172 F.3d 859 (3d Cir. 1998), where we found there was no            
          overpayment of the taxpayer’s proper tax even though the statute            
          of limitations barred assessment of that tax for the year in                
          issue.  We relied on the holding in Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S.             
          281, 283 (1932), wherein the Court stated:                                  
               An overpayment must appear before refund is authorized.                
               Although the statute of limitations may have barred the                
               assessment and collection of any additional sum, it                    
               does not obliterate the right of the United States to                  
               retain payments already received when they do not                      
               exceed the amount which might have been properly                       
               assessed and demanded.                                                 
          Bachner was decided on remand from the Court of Appeals for the             
          Third Circuit, which had held that the question of whether there            
          was an overpayment was an issue that was independent of whether             
          there was a deficiency.  Bachner v. Commissioner, 81 F.3d 1274,             
          1279 (3d Cir. 1996).                                                        




Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011