- 133 -
relief not only to taxpayers to whom respondent owes interest,
but also to taxpayers who owe interest to respondent.67
We are given further pause by the holding of the Supreme
Court in Commissioner v. McCoy, 484 U.S. 3 (1987). In McCoy, the
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an unpublished
order following its affirmance--809 F.3d 333 (6th Cir. 1987),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1985-509--of the Tax Court’s denial of special
use estate tax valuation. In its order, the Court of Appeals had
granted the taxpayer’s request for relief from interest and
penalties, which “now exceed the assessed tax” and ordered the
Tax Court to forgive the interest and penalties “in order to
achieve a fair and just result.” Id. at 5-6. In a per curiam
opinion, Justice Marshall dissenting, the Supreme Court held that
the Court of Appeals had exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering
the Tax Court to forgive interest on the determined deficiency in
estate tax and to forgive the statutorily imposed late payment
penalty. In so doing, the Supreme Court observed:
67The Court is concerned about the parties’ stipulation
filed on June 22, 2005, wherein they apparently seek to remove
from this Court’s consideration the issue of whether any
remittance by an affected taxpayer is an (interest bearing)
advance payment or a (non-interest bearing) cash bond. This
Court is not bound by such stipulation. We believe the mandates
of the Court of Appeals require that interest be paid to all
affected taxpayers who made remittances with respect to Kersting
deficiencies, as was the case with the Thompsons. Inasmuch as we
have jurisdiction over interest on overpayments, we shall direct
respondent to compute and pay such interest to all affected
taxpayers who made remittances with respect to the deficiencies
that had been determined against them.
Page: Previous 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011