- 8 -
In Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. ___, ___ (2000) (slip op. at
17), we interpreted the term “underlying tax liability” as
including any amounts owed by a taxpayer pursuant to the tax laws
that are the subject of the Commissioner’s collection activities.
Pursuant to our recent decision in Moore v. Commissioner,
114 T.C. 171 (2000), respondent argues that we do not have
jurisdiction over the underlying tax liability; i.e., the section
6702 frivolous return penalties. In Moore v. Commissioner, supra
at 175, we observed that our deficiency jurisdiction generally is
limited to the redetermination of income, estate, and gift taxes.
See secs. 6211, 6213(a). We interpreted section 6330(d)(1)(A)
and (B) as not expanding the Court’s jurisdiction beyond the
types of taxes over which the Court has jurisdiction. See Moore
v. Commissioner, supra at 175. We concluded that because we did
not have jurisdiction to redetermine Federal trust fund taxes
determined by the Commissioner under section 6672, we did not
have jurisdiction to review an Appeals officer’s determination
pursuant to section 6330 with regard to those taxes. See id.
Just as in Moore, in which we held that we did not have
jurisdiction to redetermine Federal trust fund taxes, we hold
that we do not, in the instant case, have jurisdiction to
redetermine the frivolous return penalties assessed pursuant to
section 6702. See sec. 6703(b) and (c); Hansen v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1996-158; Nephew v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-32.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011