Estate of Frank A. Branson - Page 12




                                       - 12 -                                         

          petition with this Court.  There is no doubt that we have                   
          jurisdiction of this case.  We may therefore exercise full                  
          judicial power in its disposition.                                          
          Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit                                      
               Any appeal in this case lies to the Court of Appeals for the           
          Ninth Circuit, and we are bound by any decision of that court               
          squarely in point.  See Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742, 756-           
          757 (1970), affd. 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971).  Respondent                
          asserts that this issue was settled in the Ninth Circuit by                 
          Mohawk Petroleum Co. v. Commissioner, 148 F.2d 957, 959 (9th Cir.           
          1945), affg. 47 B.T.A. 952 (1942).                                          
               In Mohawk Petroleum Co. v. Commissioner, supra, the Court of           
          Appeals relied on Gooch Milling & Elevator Co. for its decision             
          that the Board of Tax Appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider               
          equitable recoupment of income taxes.  See id. at 959.  Because             
          we have found that Gooch Milling & Elevator Co. is not on point,            
          it follows that Mohawk Petroleum Co. is not dispositive.                    
          Accordingly, we disagree with respondent's assertion.                       
               In Mueller II, we found additional support for our decision            
          in sections 7422(e), 6512(a), and 7481.  See Mueller II, 101 T.C.           
          at 557.  Considered together, these sections indicate that                  
          "Congress intended the Tax Court to have full judicial authority            
          to resolve issues over which it has jurisdiction".  Woods v.                







Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011