- 13 -
Commissioner, supra. Most notably, unlike Powerstein, respondent
is attempting to collect the tax that petitioners reported as due
on their original return--an amount that is properly
characterized as an amount "shown upon his return" within the
meaning of section 301.6211-1(a), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Finally, petitioners contend that the Court may bar
respondent's collection efforts based on Russell v. United
States, 529 F.2d at 1072, which petitioners cite for the
proposition that the Court has jurisdiction to decide "the entire
gamut of possible issues that controlled the determination of the
amount of tax liability for the year in question". Although
Russell v. United States, supra at 1072, correctly states that
the Court has broad jurisdiction to decide the correct amount of
tax liability for a taxable year properly before the Court,
Russell does not address the question of the scope of the Court's
jurisdiction to restrain collection. As previously discussed,
section 6213(a) expressly limits the Court's authority to
restrain collection to "the deficiency that is the subject of [a
timely filed] petition". However, we have concluded that
respondent is not attempting to collect the deficiency that is
the subject of the petition filed in this case.4
4 Consistent with Russell v. United States, 592 F.2d 1069
(9th Cir. 1979), we do observe that, if petitioners were to pay
the amount that respondent seeks to collect, petitioners may seek
leave to file an amended petition with the Court which includes
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011