- 20 -
in which respondent argues that a suit in a U.S. District
Court or the Court of Federal Claims can proceed during the
Tax Court case, in Estate of Baumgardner the Commissioner
acknowledged that such an action could be barred by
expiration of the period of limitations on filing a claim
for refund. See Estate of Baumgardner v. Commissioner,
supra at 448, 452-453.
We held that the term “overpayment”, as used in
section 6512(b), includes interest and, accordingly, we
held that “we have jurisdiction to consider interest as
part of an ‘overpayment’”. Id. at 458-459. In coming to
that conclusion, we noted that section 301.6611-1(c),
Proced. & Admin. Regs., expressly states that “the amount
of any interest paid with respect to the deficiency * * *
is also an overpayment.” Id. at 452.
The principal justification for our holding in Estate
of Baumgardner, however, was based on the symmetry of our
overpayment jurisdiction under section 6512(b) and the
jurisdiction of the U.S. District Courts and the Court of
Federal Claims. We pointed out that jurisdiction over
overpayments generally rests with the U.S. District Courts
and the Court of Federal Claims, but in the limited
circumstances that the Tax Court is given overpayment
jurisdiction, i.e., in situations where a notice of
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011