Sunoco, Inc. and Subsidiaries - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         
                                       OPINION                                        

                  WHALEN, Judge:  This case is before the Court to                    
             decide respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of                        
             subject matter jurisdiction filed with regard to certain                 
             claims petitioner made in an amendment to its petition.                  
             The issue raised by respondent’s motion is whether this                  
             Court lacks jurisdiction under section 6512(b) to consider               
             petitioner’s claims for overpayment to the extent that they              
             involve so-called overpayment interest, as described below.              
             All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code for              
             the years at issue.  We believe that the issues in this                  
             case are controlled by our Opinion in Estate of Baumgardner              
             v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 445 (1985).  On that basis, we                  
             hold that we have jurisdiction to determine an overpayment               
             composed of overpayment interest.  Therefore, we will deny               
             respondent’s motion.                                                     
                                      Background                                      
                  Petitioner filed the instant petition for                           
             redetermination of deficiencies respondent determined for                
             1979, 1981, and 1983.  Petitioner later filed an amendment               
             to its petition that makes reference to the fact that                    
             petitioner and respondent had settled various issues with                
             regard to the years in issue.  The amendment to petition                 
             claims additional overpayments for each of those years due               





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011