- 12 - changed his practice. While both these circumstances may evidence confusion about how the change would be implemented, we do not find that either point overcomes the logical meaning of the statutory language itself. The remaining issue is whether the $10,000 threshold is to be applied to the highest total overpayment that previously existed or the amount at the effective date of the statutory change. Much of the controversy in Gen. Elec. Co. v. United States, 384 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2004) centered on the question whether the term “overpayment” as used in section 6621(a)(1) referred to a single, cumulative amount for a particular taxable year (the amount by which the tax paid for the year exceeded the tax liability for the year before any credits or refunds) or referred instead to the amount owed to the taxpayer at a particular point in time (e.g., the amount of any excess tax paid for a year that remained unrefunded and uncredited on January 1, 1995). Although the two amounts could be the same in any given case, the issue was important in Gen. Elec. Co. because the “single, cumulative amount” of its 1978 overpayment had been fully refunded or credited before January 1, 1995, and the only “amount owed” to it on that date was previously accrued interest, which the parties agreed was not part of the “overpayment” as that term is used in section 6621(a)(1) for purposes of defining the $10,000Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011