Attorney-at-Law

OVER AND UNDER AND OUT

In Uncategorized on 06/25/2026 at 16:09

No, not another brilliant defensive move by the Champion New York Knickerbockers’ star Jalen Brunson (Party like it’s 1973!). Judge Cary Douglas (“C-Doug”) Pugh blocks shots by both IRS and Meta Platforms, Inc. & Subsidiaries, Docket No. 16081-25, filed 6/25/26.

IRS claims Meta underpaid for year at issue, and Meta claims they overpaid. Anyway, Meta claims IRS was charging them statutory (Section 6601(a)) interest for a period covered by a Federal disaster relief determination. IRS claims no jurisdiction per Section 7481(c), but Meta claims they overpaid and thus they’re owed interest, so Tax Court has jurisdiction.

Judge C-Doug Pugh says before assessment, Tax Court has no jurisdiction over statutory interest, and in this deficiency case we haven’t had a trial yet.

“Petitioner does not dispute our jurisdiction over statutory interest on underpayments but counters that it has invoked the Court’s overpayment jurisdiction in section 6512(b) as it alleges that respondent erred in denying a refund claim. It therefore reasons that it will be entitled to interest on any overpayment it made. And because overpayment interest is not included in the section 6601(e)(1) carve out from the definition of ‘tax’ then its interest claim should remain.” Order, at p. 2.

Negatory, good buddy, says Judge C-Doug Pugh.

“Only after our decision in this case is final, and the other conditions of section 7481 are met, will we have jurisdiction over the question of whether petitioner overpaid interest on an underpayment assessed by respondent or respondent underpaid interest on an overpayment refunded by respondent as a result of our decision. As we have not determined any deficiency or overpayment, respondent has not assessed any deficiency resulting from our determination (including statutory interest) and petitioner has not paid any deficiency (including statutory interest), or alternatively respondent has not refunded an overpayment with interest, we lack jurisdiction over the alleged error regarding computation of interest.” Order, at p. 2.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.