- 73 -
majority redefining the term “overpayment” in a way that changes
the parties’ agreement. It answers the question--“Does the
amount of an ‘overpayment’ include any underpayment interest owed
by a taxpayer at the time of the overpayment calculation?” with a
one-size-fits-all answer of “yes.” The right answer should be
“It depends”--with the answer being decided on the particular
facts of the case at hand.
And this points to the second shortcoming in the majority’s
opinion--its focus on section 6512. That section is only a
jurisdictional statute, and we construed the word “overpayment”
in that section, via section 6601(e)’s general definition of
“tax,” to mean that we had jurisdiction over disputes about the
overpayment of a tax plus interest instead of tax alone. Barton
v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 548, 552 (1991); Estate of Baumgardner
v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 445, 451-452 (1985). But this is not a
case that turns on jurisdiction--everyone agrees we have
jurisdiction in an appropriate case to order the payment of an
overpayment and any interest due on it. It turns instead on how
we have chosen to exercise our jurisdiction; in cases like this
one, we have chosen to do so according to rule. When we exercise
our jurisdiction under section 6512, we do it by deciding what
was the “overpayment determined by the Court * * *.” Rule 260.
Rule 260, consistently with Rule 155, should lead us to the
agreed decision of the parties, and their intended meaning of
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