- 9 -
Having decided that we have jurisdiction over petitioner's
motion to redetermine interest, we turn to the question whether
to grant or deny petitioner's motion to withdraw such motion.
Respondent argues that, if our jurisdiction attaches, we must
exercise that jurisdiction and cannot grant petitioner's motion
to withdraw.
During the pendency of a case in this Court, our
jurisdiction is exclusive and, with a few exceptions, another
proceeding may not be commenced or, if already commenced, is
stayed. Secs. 6213(a), 6512(a), 7422(e). Filing a petition in
this Court that is properly subject to our jurisdiction precludes
the taxpayer from later bringing a refund suit for the same type
of tax for the same taxable period. Sec. 6512(a); Estate of Ming
v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 519, 521 (1974) (quoting Dorl v.
Commissioner, 57 T.C. 720, 721-722 (1972)). It is well settled
that, when the jurisdiction of this Court is properly invoked by
the filing of a valid petition to redetermine a deficiency, we
cannot refuse to exercise that jurisdiction. Coninck v.
Commissioner, 100 T.C. 495, 498 (1993); cf. sec. 7459(d).
The question before us is the extent to which the foregoing
principles should apply to a motion to redetermine interest under
section 7481(c). Section 6512(a) provides in pertinent part:
If the Secretary has mailed to the taxpayer a notice of
deficiency under section 6212(a) (relating to
deficiencies of income, estate, gift, and certain
excise taxes) and if the taxpayer files a petition with
the Tax Court within the time prescribed in section
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011