Sunoco, Inc. and Subsidiaries - Page 22

                                        - 22 -                                        
                  There was no compulsion to so restrictively read                    
                  this language.  This Court could have read the                      
                  phrase “overpayment of tax” as part of the                          
                  threshold necessary to be able to further enable                    
                  the Tax Court “to determine the amount of such                      
                  overpayment.”  There was no compelling reason to                    
                  interpret the word “tax” to exclude additions to                    
                  the tax or interest.  There was, instead, reason                    
                  to consider interest as part of an overpayment.                     
                  * * * But these opinions have failed to recognize                   
                  that Congress has legislatively provided for the                    
                  exceptional situation where, after a deficiency                     
                  has been determined and the taxpayer has                            
                  petitioned the Tax Court, an overpayment results.                   
                  Although there is no legislative history to                         
                  assist us, it is hard to imagine that Congress                      
                  could have intended to bifurcate an “overpayment”                   
                  by limiting the taxpayer’s refund to “tax” only.                    
                  It is equally hard to imagine that an “overpay-                     
                  ment” has a different meaning depending upon                        
                  the forum.  Either of those approaches would                        
                  force some taxpayers to resolve a single tax                        
                  controversy in two different forums.  Strangely,                    
                  those forced to unreasonably duplicate their                        
                  costs and efforts would be the lucky ones                           
                  because, as in this case, others would be barred                    
                  from recovery of the interest portion of the                        
                  overpayment due to their failure and/or inability                   
                  to make a timely claim.                                             
             Id. at 456-457.                                                          

                  In passing, we note that Estate of Baumgardner was a                
             reviewed Opinion of the Court that has been consistently                 
             followed for more than 18 years since it was issued.                     
             See Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 291                
             (1998) (underpayment interest under section 6601 is part                 
             of an overpayment); Bachner v. Commissioner, 109 T.C. 125,               
             128 (1997) (the term “overpayment” is not defined in terms               

Page:  Previous  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011