Page images


issues; Commissioner conceded Court had jurisdiction under sec.
6512(b) to determine overpayment based on petitioner's claim that
it overpaid underpayment interest (i.e., interest computed under
sec. 6601 on interim underpayment in petitioner's account), but
Commissioner asserted Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate
claimed overpayments insofar as they encompass claims for pay-
ment of overpayment interest (i.e., interest computed under sec.
6611 on interim overpayment in petitioner's account) on amounts
previously credited or refunded; and Commissioner moved for
dismissal, contending Court lacked jurisdiction under sec. 6512(b)
to consider overpayment attributable to overpayment interest,
Court denied Commissioner's motion to dismiss. (Estate of
Baumgardner v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 445, followed.) Sunoco,
Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner




Motion To Vacate Order of Dismissal and Decision-Part-
nership Proceeding-Standard for Vacating Decision. -
Where decision sustaining Commissioner's determinations regard-
ing partnership’s taxable years 1985–89 had been entered on Sept.
1, 2000, modified pursuant to mandate of Court of Appeals on
March 24, 2003, and become final on April 23, 2003; and partner
who had not previously participated in TEFRA partnership proceed-
ing under secs. 6221-6233 filed motions on Dec. 9, 2003, for leave
to file notice of election to participate out of time, to vacate order
of dismissal and final decision under sec. 7481(a), and to be
appointed tax matters partner, Court determined motion to vacate
was properly submitted without leave of Court of Appeals (Stand-
ard Oil Co. of Cal. v. United States, 429 U.S. 17, followed, and
Lydon v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 128, overruled); movant partner did
not allege proper grounds for vacating final decision; and standards
for vacating final decision in TEFRA proceeding were same as those
in deficiency cases. Cinema '84 v. Commissioner



Petition for Award of Reasonable Administrative Costs-
Settlement Without Issuance of Notice of Decision or Notice
of Deficiency—“Prevailing Party" Requirement. - Where

petitioners, two S corporations and two shareholders thereof,
received and protested to Appeals Office 30-day letters proposing to
increase income as to 1993 and 1994 income tax returns, and par-
ties settled without Commissioner's issuing notice of decision or
notice of deficiency; and petitioners filed under sec. 7430(f) petition
for reasonable administrative costs that Commissioner opposed on
ground that petitioners were not entitled to award as matter of law
since they were not prevailing parties under sec. 7430(c)(4), Court
determined (1) Commissioner never took position in administrative
proceeding for purposes of sec. 7430(c)(7)(B) since petitioners never
received notice of decision from Appeals Office and Commissioner
never sent notice of deficiency, and consequently petitioners were
not prevailing parties for sec. 7430(c) purposes; (2) “notice of defi-

« PreviousContinue »