- 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 $10,000
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011