- 67 -
different from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This Court
has statutorily prescribed deficiency jurisdiction, which the
District Courts do not have; the District Courts have refund
jurisdiction, which this Court does not have (except where an
overpayment is developed in a case that began as a deficiency
case, or in a "TEFRA partnership" or S corporation case). This
Court has developed the "Lawrence doctrine", modified by the
"Golsen doctrine", as described in Lardas v. Commissioner, 99
T.C. 490, 493-495 (1992), which does not have a practical
counterpart in the District Courts. This Court's burden of proof
rules in deficiency cases differ in some respects from those
applicable in refund cases in the District Courts. See in this
connection Helvering v. Taylor, 293 U.S. 507, 514 (1935). As to
other differences between this Court and the District Courts, see
Commissioner v. Lundy, 516 U.S. 235, 244-245, 252 (1996).
Thirdly, as to the critical dispute in the instant case,
this Court and the District Courts differ in their statutory
powers in such a way that equitable recoupment fits what the
District Courts do (decide directly how much, including interest,
the Government must pay to the taxpayer, or vice versa) and does
not fit what this Court does, redetermine the amount of the
deficiency, if any, which is merely one factor in how much must
be paid.
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