- 11 -
redetermine the amount of the estate tax deficiency now before
us.7
In Estate of Bartels v. Commissioner, supra at 435-436, we
stated:
what is involved herein is a question of our authority
and not a question of our jurisdiction since we already
have jurisdiction by virtue of the income tax
deficiency notice and the timely petition filed in
response thereto. Thus, the cases articulating a
principle that the jurisdiction of this Court is
limited to that conferred upon it by Congress
represented by Commissioner v. Gooch Milling & Elevator
Co., supra, and its progeny, have no application. * * *
[Citation omitted.]
Therefore, "'While we cannot expand our jurisdiction through
equitable principles, we can apply equitable principles in the
disposition of cases that come within our jurisdiction.'" See
Woods v. Commissioner, supra at 784-785 (quoting Berkery v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 259, 270 (1988) (Hamblen, J., concurring)).
In this case, respondent accepted petitioner's and March's
income tax returns, which reported gain calculated by using the
fair market values of the shares reported on the estate tax
return. Respondent asserted a higher date-of-death fair market
value for those same shares for estate tax purposes, determined a
deficiency in petitioner's estate tax, and issued a statutory
notice of deficiency. In response, petitioner filed its timely
7Furthermore, sec. 6214(b) specifically applies only to
income and gift taxes, and makes no mention of estate tax. See
Estate of Mueller v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 551, 560 (1993).
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