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                
               motivated transactions.                                                
          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:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008