- 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 amountPage: 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