- 18 -
section 6512(b) includes an overpayment composed of
interest on underpayments computed under section 6601.
Respondent also concedes that the underpayment interest at
issue in this case is indistinguishable from the interest
that was at issue in Estate of Baumgardner. Respondent’s
motion papers do not address the fact that it is impossible
to exercise jurisdiction over petitioner’s overpayment
claims composed of underpayment interest, in accordance
with our Opinion in Estate of Baumgardner, unless we also
have jurisdiction to determine an overpayment composed of
overpayment interest.
The issue in this case is whether petitioner’s
overpayment claims based upon the amount of overpayment
interest allowed by respondent involve an “overpayment”
within the meaning of section 6512(b). There is no
definition of the term “overpayment” in the Code, but in
Jones v. Liberty Glass Co., 332 U.S. 524, 531 (1947),
the Supreme Court defined the term for purposes of the
statutory predecessor of section 6512(b) as “any payment
in excess of that which is properly due.” The Supreme
Court said:
we read the word “overpayment” in its usual
sense, as meaning any payment in excess of that
which is properly due. Such an excess payment
may be traced to an error in mathematics or in
judgment or in interpretation of facts or law.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011