Exxon Mobil Corporation and Affilliated Companies, f.k.a. Exxon Corporation and Affiliated Companies - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
               As indicated, however, petitioners contend that respondent             
          undercalculates, and has not paid petitioners, the full amount of           
          the additional interest that accrued after December 31, 1994, on            
          petitioners’ cumulative accrued overpayment interest balance of             
          approximately $1.6 billion that was outstanding on December 31,             
          1994, and that was not paid to petitioners until 2004 and 2005.             
               As petitioners read the above GATT amendment to section                
          6621(a), the GATT overpayment interest rate reduction does not              
          apply to petitioners’ December 31, 1994, overpayment interest               
          balance.  Petitioners read section 6621(a)(1) either as expressly           
          supporting their interpretation or as vague and lacking a                   
          specific mandate that the reduced GATT interest rate is to apply            
          to their December 31, 1994, overpayment interest balance.                   
          Petitioners argue that “In the absence of some specific                     
          instruction to the contrary, the interest continues to compound             
          at the same rate at which interest first began to accrue on the             
          tax overpayment”; i.e., at the regular rate.  Petitioners argue             
          further that the GATT amendment “directs that the change in                 
          interest rate * * * should be limited to a portion of the amounts           
          owed to the taxpayer-–with the remaining portion continuing to              
          accrue interest at the regular rate.”                                       
               Petitioners’ arguments focus on, or are dependent primarily            
          on, the interpretation of the flush language in section                     
          6621(a)(1) that refers to an “overpayment of tax”.  Petitioners             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011