William R. and Betty O. Bass - Page 15
- 15 -
Petitioners nevertheless argue that this Court has
jurisdiction to review interest assessments under section
6621(c)(4). Section 6621(c)(4) provides as follows:
(4) Jurisdiction of Tax Court.–-In the case of any
proceeding in the Tax Court for a redetermination of a
deficiency, the Tax Court shall also have jurisdiction
to determine the portion (if any) of such deficiency
which is a substantial underpayment attributable to tax
Respondent presumably determined that the underlying deficiency
in this case was a substantial underpayment attributable to a
tax-motivated transaction. As explained above, this Court does
not have jurisdiction to review the underlying deficiency.
Because the underlying deficiency is not before this Court,
section 6621(c)(4) cannot confer jurisdiction to determine what
portion of such underlying deficiency is attributable to a tax-
motivated transaction. Although each addition to tax at issue in
this case is a “deficiency” within the meaning of section
6621(c)(4), section 6621(c)(2) excludes additions to tax from the
definition of “substantial underpayment attributable to tax
motivated transactions”, thereby precluding review under section
6621(c)(4). White v. Commissioner, supra at 216; see Robnett v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-17; Hunt v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2001-15 (both involving jojoba venture partnerships).
We have considered the other arguments of the parties, and
they are either irrelevant to our decision or lacking in merit.
Page: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Last modified: March 27, 2008