- 9 -
Moreover, in deciding cases over which we have jurisdiction "we
have applied the equity-based principles of waiver, duty of
consistency, estoppel, substantial compliance, abuse of
discretion, laches, and the tax benefit rule." See Woods v.
Commissioner, 92 T.C. 776, 784 (1989); fn. refs. omitted. Thus,
this Court should be properly viewed as exercising full judicial
power within its limited subject matter jurisdiction.4
Furthermore, in United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 611 n.8
(1990), the Supreme Court noted: "We have no occasion to pass
upon the question whether Dalm could have raised a recoupment
claim in the Tax Court." See also id. at 615 n.3 (Stevens, J.,
dissenting) (commending the majority's reservation of the
question whether the Tax Court has authority to consider
recoupment). Thus, although the Supreme Court agreed that the
Board of Tax Appeals could not consider equitable recoupment, we
believe that the Supreme Court has left this issue open with
respect to the Tax Court as presently constituted. Commissioner
v. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co., and its progeny, therefore, do
not control the outcome of this case.
3(...continued)
Court operates pretty indistinguishably from a federal district
court.").
4See Saltzman, IRS Practice and Procedure, par. 5.06[1], at
S5-20 (2d ed. 1991); Willis, "Equitable Recoupment: More
Pitfalls for the Unwary", Tax Notes 361 (Oct. 19, 1998).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011