- 74 -
its terms. I recognize that this means that parties could define
“overpayment” as an overpayment of tax in the context of settling
cases, while construing “overpayment” in section 6512 to mean we
have jurisdiction over both overpayments of tax and interest.
But that sort of context-specific interpretation is recognized
throughout the Code. Section 6601(e) itself begins with “Except
as otherwise provided in this title” and this phrase is a
recognition by Congress that a complex tax code patched together
at many different times for many different purposes should not be
interpreted using something akin to a universal-search-and-
replace function.2 Glossing is almost always necessary to decide
the likeliest meaning of the Code, and the majority creates a
gloss of its own by construing sections 6512(b) and 6402(a) to
not apply to the very tax liabilities at issue in an overpayment
case.
The third and final issue I wish to highlight is the
majority’s seeming indifference to the effects of today’s
decision on a large number of third parties. As Judge Goeke
points out, today’s definition of “overpayment” threatens to
bollix up the procedure for interest calculations by forcing
2 The majority likewise relies on regulation Sec. 301.6611-
1(b), Proced. & Admin. Regs., as additional support for its
conclusion that “overpayment” must mean “the amount by which
payments exceed the tax, including any underpayment interest.”
See majority op. pp. 18-19. But that regulation defines
overpayment for the purpose of computing interest, not drafting
settlement documents.
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