- 12 - States, 384 F.3d 1307 (Fed Cir. 2004), affg. on this issue and remanding in part 56 Fed. Cl. 488 (2003). As explained in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, supra (slip op. at 9), with regard to the language of section 6621(a)(1): The role of the phrase “overpayment of tax” is central to this dispute. We find the phrase in question is a device to describe the occasion when the GATT rate is triggered for all interest computational purposes including compounding under section 6622. We do not read the phrase “overpayment of tax” as a limitation on the scope of the applicability of the changed rate once triggered. * * * The legislative history of the GATT rate change and the effective date language, set forth above, discuss only a change in the rate of interest “without distinguishing between the rate paid on an overpayment and the rate compounded.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, supra (slip op. at 10). A bifurcation in the interest to be paid on the tax overpayment itself, and the interest to be paid on interest is not found in the statute. In Gen. Elec. Co. v. United States, 384 F.3d at 1311, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained its holding, in part, as follows: We think it highly unlikely that Congress intended the exception to the GATT rate for small overpayments to have such dramatic potential consequences for overpayments vastly larger than the modest overpayments of $10,000 or less that are eligible for the regular rate. * * * While the statutoryPage: 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