- 6 -
parties have framed their respective motions solely in terms of
the jurisdiction of this Court, petitioners arguing that we have
such jurisdiction and respondent arguing that we do not.4
The jurisdictional status of equitable recoupment in this
Court has had a long history, which we have recently reviewed
with painstaking care in Estate of Mueller v. Commissioner, 101
T.C. 551 (1993) (Court reviewed). We see no need to reiterate
that history. Rather, we turn directly to the statutory
provision upon which respondent relies, section 6214(b), which
provides as follows:
(b) Jurisdiction Over Other Years and Quarters.--
The Tax Court in redetermining a deficiency of income
tax for any taxable year or of gift tax for any
calendar year or calendar quarter shall consider such
facts with relation to the taxes for other years or
calendar quarters as may be necessary correctly to
redetermine the amount of such deficiency, but in so
doing shall have no jurisdiction to determine whether
or not the tax for any other year or calendar quarter
has been overpaid or underpaid.
4 Respondent has raised no question in respect of the
requirements of the "same transaction" concept upon which the
doctrine of equitable recoupment rests presumably because, aside
from the question of the jurisdiction of this Court, she has
taken the position that equitable recoupment is available under
the circumstances of this case in a ruling that she does not seek
to disavow herein. Rev. Rul. 71-56, 1971-1 C.B. 404; see O'Brien
v. United States, 766 F.2d 1038, 1047-1051 (7th Cir. 1985);
compare United States v. Bowcut, 287 F.2d 654 (9th Cir. 1961),
and United States v. Herring, 240 F.2d 225 (4th Cir. 1957), with
Wilmington Trust Co. v. United States, 221 Ct. Cl. 686, 610 F.2d
703 (1979); see also Andrews, "Modern-Day Equitable Recoupment
and the 'Two Tax Effect': Avoidance of the Statutes of Limitation
in Federal Tax Controversies," 28 Ariz. L. Rev. 595 (1986).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011