John G. Goette, Jr. and Marian Goettee - Page 16

                                       - 16 -                                         
         B.  Amount in Controversy                                                    
              Petitioners do not contend that they substantially prevailed            
         with respect to the amount in controversy because, they state,               
         “no simple mathematical application of the ‘amount in                        
         controversy’ test seems possible in connection with this interest            
         abatement claim.”                                                            
              Nevertheless, it may help to put this matter in perspective             
         to compare petitioners’ trial memorandum with the parties’ joint             
         Rule 155 computation.                                                        
                                       Table 1                                        
         Year   Petitioners’ Trial MemorandumJoint      Overpayment As Percent         
              “Interest Paid -              Rule 155     of Abatement Requested       
              Abatement Requested”         Overpayment                                
                                                                                     
         1979      $36,520        $950.97                   2.6                       
         1981           4,975     456.23                    9.2                       
         1982          13,952               1,286.15         9.2                      
              Totals  55,447                2,693.35        4.9                       
              As table 1 shows, petitioners claimed in their trial                    
         memorandum that they were entitled to an abatement of more than              
         $55,000 of the interest they paid for the 3 years remaining in               
         the case, but the parties’ joint Rule 155 computation shows that             
         they have been awarded not quite 5 percent of what they claimed.             
              We do not attempt in the instant case to set forth a                    
         universal definition of “amount in controversy” in interest                  
         abatement cases.  See Dixson Corp. v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 708,             
         715 (1990), as to deficiency cases.  But surely, in the setting              
         of the instant case, that amount is not less than the amount                 





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

Last modified: May 25, 2011