- 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