- 66 -
CHABOT, J., dissenting: The majority hold that this Court
has authority to apply the doctrine of equitable recoupment and
"that petitioner is entitled to recoup the residuary legatee's
excessive payment of income tax against the estate tax
deficiency." Supra majority op. pp. 2-3. For the reasons set
forth in my dissent in Estate of Mueller v. Commissioner, 101
T.C. 551, 565-571 (1993) (Mueller II), I respectfully dissent.
The majority opinion and Judge Laro's concurring opinion do
not attempt to deal with the substance of that dissent; instead,
they focus on this Court's status as a Court, as a result of the
amendments made by the Tax Reform Act of 1969 (TRA '69), Pub. L.
91-172, sec. 951, 83 Stat. 730. I am well aware of the text of
TRA '69, its legislative history, and the Congress' intentions.
I am satisfied that there is nothing in the materials considered
by or generated by the Congress in connection with TRA '69 that
speaks to the issue of equitable recoupment; however, it is clear
that the Congress did not intend to make this Court an "Article
III court".
Firstly, clearly, this Court is a court.
Secondly, this Court is not a Federal District Court. This
Court is a Federal trial court, like the District Courts, and
must abide by the same Federal Rules of Evidence. However this
Court has statutory authority to prescribe its own Rules of
Practice and Procedure (sec. 7453), which in many respects are
Page: Previous 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011