- 12 -
section 7430(c)(4)(D). Moreover, the retroactive application of
a tax statute is not suspect “where it involves a mere change in
rate or a technical amendment.” Howell v. Commissioner, 77 T.C.
916, 921 (1981). Finally, the fact that Congress acted promptly
to correct the error and established only a modest period of
retroactivity supports the conclusion that petitioner’s due
process rights have not been violated. See United States v.
Carlton, supra at 34. For these reasons, the retroactive
application of the technical correction to section 7430(c)(4)(D)
does not violate due process.
Petitioner appears to fashion a second due process claim
based on the contention that the statutory scheme for
jurisdiction in interest abatement cases, involving “three
statutes contained in two different titles of the U.S. Code”,
provides inadequate notice of the requirements for Tax Court
review and thereby offends due process. More specifically,
petitioner contends that, given their subject matter differences,
an amendment to section 7430(c)(4)(D) gives no indication of a
change in section 6404. In support of this argument, petitioner
cites Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306
(1950), and quotes from Walthall v. United States, 131 F.3d 1289,
1294 (9th Cir. 1997).5 However, both of these cases address the
5 Although petitioner attributes the quotation to United
States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325 (9th Cir. 1997), its source is
Walthall v. United States, 131 F.3d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1997).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011