- 13 -
to make notice and demand for payment of her 1992 deficiency) to
July 3, 2000 (when respondent sent her Form CP 504 requesting
payment). On brief, petitioner contends that she is entitled to
a refund for:
all compound interest she paid for the period April 15,
1993 to July 18, 2000, all interest she paid for
periods during which interest was suspended or [sic]
July 5, 1997 to July 3, 2000; and for all sums that she
paid for penalties and additions and interest on such,
that were disallowed by the June 5, 1997 Tax Court
decision.
Petitioner’s claim for a refund arises, if at all, under
section 6330(c)(2), as an outgrowth of her challenge to the
existence and amount of her underlying 1992 tax liability.12
Pursuant to section 6330(c)(2), however, whatever right
petitioner may have to challenge the existence and amount of her
underlying tax liability in this proceeding arises only in
connection with her challenge to the proposed collection action.
Inasmuch as the proposed levy is moot, petitioner has no
independent basis to challenge the existence or amount of her
underlying tax liability in this proceeding.
More fundamentally, section 6330 does not expressly give
this Court jurisdiction to determine an overpayment or to order a
refund or credit of taxes paid. This Court has not previously
12 The right to challenge the existence and amount of
underlying tax liability encompasses the right to challenge the
existence and amount of disputed interest thereon. Urbano v.
Commissioner, 122 T.C. 384, 389-390 (2004).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011