- 49 -
THORNTON, J., concurring: The majority opinion holds that
this Court’s previous decision as to the amount of the estate tax
overpayment necessarily incorporated the estate’s liability for
certain underpayment interest that had already been assessed (and
had not been abated). I agree with this holding, as confined to
its facts. Inasmuch as the facts of this case do not present any
issue as to the treatment of unassessed underpayment interest in
the calculation of an overpayment, I do not believe that the
majority opinion should be construed as resolving that issue.
Background
Certain procedural facts, not discussed in the majority
opinion, are important for understanding how the underpayment
interest in question had come to be assessed before this Court
entered its decision as to the overpayment.
On June 4, 1997, we issued our original opinion in the
instant case. See Estate of Smith v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 412
(1997).1 Pursuant to that opinion, on February 18, 1998, we
entered our original decision determining an estate tax
deficiency of $564,429.87.
1 Pursuant to our original opinion, the parties submitted
separate computations of the estate tax deficiency under Rule
155. On Jan. 12, 1998, we issued a supplemental opinion
resolving a disagreement between the parties with respect to
their computations. See Estate of Smith v. Commissioner, 110
T.C. 12 (1998).
Page: Previous 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011