Ms. Hook also asserts that, for purposes of her refund claim, the amended complaint complied with the "full payment rule" because it showed that plaintiffs had overpaid their tax liabilities for all the tax years at issue. See 26 U.S.C. § 6512(a)(2) (creating an exception to the general prohibition on proceeding outside of the Tax Court for "any amount collected in excess of an amount computed in accordance with the decision of the Tax Court which has become final"); Magnone v. United States, 902 F.2d 192, 193 (2d Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (stating that "the full payment rule requires as a prerequisite for federal court jurisdiction over a tax refund suit, that the taxpayer make full payment of the assessment, including penalties and interest") (citing Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63 (1958), aff’d on reh’g, 362 U.S. 145 (1960)). But her contention that the amended complaint shows all amounts were paid, including interest and penalties, is conclusory. And she fails to identify any error in the district court’s determination that Ms. Tibbs’s declaration and supporting exhibits established that the accounting in the amended complaint was faulty in omitting substantial statutory interest and penalties, both of which are treated as taxes under the Internal Revenue Code. See 26 U.S.C. § 6601(e)(1) (interest is treated "in same manner as taxes" for assessment and collection purposes); id. § 6671 (same with respect to penalties); Magnone, 902 F.2d at 193 (same with respect to interest and penalties); Engh v. United States, 658 F. Supp. 698, 701 (N.D. Ill. 1987) (interest is part of the amount "‘computed in accordance with'" a final Tax Court decision for
which were substantially less than the appraised value and allegedly below market value. See Hook v. IRS (In re Hook), 469 B.R. 62, 66-67 (D. Colo. 2011).
