- 59 -
In Mueller II, we opined that we have authority to apply
equitable recoupment in a case over which we have jurisdiction;
in Estate of Mueller v. Commissioner, 107 T.C. 203 (1996)
(Mueller III), we held, consistent with the view of the majority
in United States v. Dalm, supra, that equitable recoupment is
properly confined to its traditional role as an affirmative
defense.6 Having held in the case at hand that the requirements
of equitable recoupment have been satisfied, our application of
the doctrine does no more violence to the structure of section
6211(a) than the availability of equitable recoupment in the
refund forums does to the Internal Revenue Code as a whole.
6 This observation serves to distinguish equitable
recoupment and the case at hand from Commissioner v. Lundy, 516
U.S. 235 (1996).
Page: Previous 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011