- 66 -                                         
          payment of $144,947.89, leaving an unpaid balance of $64,995.65).           
          The prior interest assessment in this case does not reflect the             
          actual interest liability due and owing.  When it was assessed,             
          this interest was beyond our jurisdiction because the case was in           
          a deficiency situation.  Our authority to address this unpaid               
          assessment of interest is now limited to section 7481(c) and Rule           
          261, neither of which are before us.                                        
          V.   Rule 155                                                               
               The present issue originates with this Court’s execution of            
          the decision document in question.  The opinion was based on a              
          computation which the parties agreed was in conformity with this            
          Court’s opinion after remand pursuant to Rule 155(a).  The Court            
          executed the decision relying on the parties’ agreement without             
          reviewing the agreed computation.  A review of the computation              
          would have revealed that the overpayment amount was not reduced             
          by interest liabilities but that an interest deduction was                  
          permitted for the anticipated payment of Federal interest of                
          $64,995.65 on the estate tax deficiency.                                    
               The estate represented to the Court that the computation               
          submitted was in conformity with the Court’s opinion and the                
          estate also represented that the interest in the amount of                  
          $64,995.65 was deductible, explicitly acknowledging that such               
          interest would be paid by offset against the overpayment of tax             
          shown in the agreed Rule 155 computation.  The Court relied upon            
Page:  Previous   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   NextLast modified: May 25, 2011